Clive Hamilton preaches to the believers: tells them to "cringe" at deniers »
« Let's copy Germany: 23,000 wind towers make 7% of its electricity to stop 0 degrees of warming
Richard Tol: half Cook's data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative.
Richard Tol has been relentlessly polite in pursuing the data through email after email to John Cook, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor Max Lu and Professor Daniel Kammen, the journal editor. Tol simply wants the data so he can replicate and check John Cook's results. Cook et al 2013 tried to demonstrate the irrelevant and unscientific point that there is a consensus among government funded climate scientists (if not among real scientists). We already know this study is fundamentally flawed (see Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study).
Now the University of Queensland's scientific standards are being openly questioned too. Will UQ insist on the bare minimum standard that applies to all scientists — will they make sure Cook provides the data for a published paper? Did they realize what they were getting into when they gave Cook their platform?
Given the large media run when this paper was issued, and the importance of saving the world from a climate catastrophe, you would have thought that Cook et al would know other scientists would want the data. Since Cook must have double checked and been rigorous preparing it, surely Cook would have all that data zipped up, ready to go when the paper was submitted in January? Naturally, Environment Research Letters would want to review that data too, wouldn't they…
But Richard Tol finds many points to question. The data is not what was reported, it fails validity tests, does not represent the literature it surveys, saying: "the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative". Cook's paper essentially relies on only 12 reviewers, who were not tested for rater bias or rater fatigue (despite answering up to 4,000 questions). There is no survey protocol. There were changes to the test that are not documented. Fifty seven percent of the data remains unreleased.
Cook claims "confidentiality". Tol repeatedly offers to sign a confidentiality clause.
I will make sure the Australian Research Council is made aware of the situation.
– Jo (my bolding below).
Professor Dr Richard S.J. Tol MEA
Professor Peter Høj
President and vice-chancellor
Falmer, 27 August 2013
Re: Open letter on access to data for replication
Dear Professor Høj,
I was struck by a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters with John Cook, a University of Queensland employee, as the lead author. The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.
My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail.
I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that, contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.
Furthermore, the data showed patterns that cannot be explained by either the data gathering process as described in the paper or by chance. This is documented. I asked Mr Cook again for the data so as to find a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the paper. As that was unsuccessful, also after a plea to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Mr Cook's work place, I contacted Professor Max Lu, deputy vice-chancellor for research, and Professor Daniel Kammen, journal editor. Professors Lu and Kammen succeeded in convincing Mr Cook to release first another 2% and later another 28% of the data.
I also asked for the survey protocol but, violating all codes of practice, none seems to exist. The paper and data do hint at what was really done. There is no trace of a pre-test. Rating training was done during the first part of the survey, rather than prior to the survey. The survey instrument was altered during the survey, and abstracts were added. Scales were modified after the survey was completed. All this introduced inhomogeneities into the data that cannot be controlled for as they are undocumented.
The later data release reveals that what the paper describes as measurement error (in either direction) is in fact measurement bias (in one particular direction). Furthermore, there is drift in measurement over time. This makes a greater nonsense of the paper.
This is documented here and here.
I went back to Professor Lu once again, asking for the remaining 57% of the data. Particularly, I asked for rater IDs and time stamps. Both may help to understand what went wrong.
Only 24 people took the survey. Of those, 12 quickly dropped out, so that the survey essentially relied on just 12 people. The results would be substantially different if only one of the 12 were biased in one way or the other. The paper does not report any test for rater bias, an astonishing oversight by authors and referees. If rater IDs are released, these tests can be done.
Because so few took the survey, these few answered on average more than 4,000 questions. The paper is silent on the average time taken to answer these questions and, more importantly, on the minimum time. Experience has that interviewees find it difficult to stay focused if a questionnaire is overly long. The questionnaire used in this paper may have set a record for length, yet neither the authors nor the referees thought it worthwhile to test for rater fatigue. If time stamps are released, these tests can be done.
Mr Cook, backed by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and Lu, has blankly refused to release these data, arguing that a data release would violate confidentiality. This reasoning is bogus.
I don't think confidentiality is relevant. The paper presents the survey as a survey of published abstracts, rather than as a survey of the raters. If these raters are indeed neutral and competent, as claimed by the paper, then tying ratings to raters would not reflect on the raters in any way.
If, on the other hand, this was a survey of the raters' beliefs and skills, rather than a survey of the abstracts they rated, then Mr Cook is correct that their identity should remain confidential. But this undermines the entire paper: It is no longer a survey of the literature, but rather a survey of Mr Cook and his friends.
If need be, the association of ratings to raters can readily be kept secret by means of a standard confidentiality agreement. I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to sign an agreement that I would not reveal the identity of the raters and that I would not pass on the confidential data to a third party either on purpose or by negligence.
I first contacted Mr Cook on 31 May 2013, requesting data that should have been ready when the paper was submitted for peer review on 18 January 2013. His foot-dragging, condoned by senior university officials, does not reflect well on the University of Queensland's attitude towards replication and openness. His refusal to release all data may indicate that more could be wrong with the paper.
Therefore, I hereby request, once again, that you release rater IDs and time stamps.
Richard Tol
cc. Mr John Story, chancellor, University of Queensland
Professor Peter Knight, president, Institute of Physics
More posts on the "0.3%" consensus paper:
Dear John, you want "deniers" to help you do a fallacious survey eh?
Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for
Lewandowsky, Cook and the Barack Obama tweet that wasn't
That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%
Cook, Nuccitelli, Green, Richardson, Winkler, Painting, Way, Jacobs and Skuce (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 [Abstract]
Errata: Professor Peter "Høj" (not Høy)
August 27th, 2013 | Tags: Cook (John) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | |
157 comments to Richard Tol: half Cook's data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative.
Brian G Valentine
You mean … John Cook's approach and conclusion is as bogus as John Cook himself is?
Shocking news indeed. This discovery would mean that "President" Obama would need to correct himself in a reference he made to Cook's "conclusion" – which I am quite sure the "President" will do forthwith.
Actually if Cook produced something, anything at all that WASN'T [wrong] I would die of apoplexy
(hint to people who would be just as happy with one less Denier)
Bernd Felsche
This is what happens when need a Chef but can only find a Cook.
A wholly unappetising, indigestible and unstimulating meal, served cold on soggy cardboard.
Yeah its like the difference between Ready steady cook and the Iron Chief 🙂
Of course i meant Iron Chef dont get confused with that Indian guy from Iron nation (hell of a google search to find that just to save my arse).
Any future discussion / reference to this paper should include the words "a survey of 12 people";
e.g. John Cook (in a survey of 12 people) found that most believed that Climate Change was caused by farting unicorns…
Sadly, it's a case of make an outrageous claim and let the internet waft it to the gullible. A common tactic being increasingly adopted by a desperate minority.
Actually, Graeme3, John took the survey himself, so it should be "John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11 others) found …"
Richard, hard to believe you could make it look worse…
"John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11 mates) found"
You can look at Cook's blog and get a sampling of some of the people who probably participated in the "survey."
Some of those people are so fervent in their beliefs, they remind me of attendants at a revivalist meetings at the turn of the 20th century.
No need. Google "ERL consensus". The nine authors were all involved in the rating, and twelve others are named in the acknowledgements. Tom Curtis is number 22. That leaves just two mystery raters.
I'm not sure why the paper claims the raters were "anonymized".
Backslider
I see that the defenders of the faith are now reduced to semantics to supposedly debunk your criticism.
Of course they totally miss the most important point: Consensus is not science.
Rater 23 is Patrick Lockerby http://www.science20.com/comments/147375/Re_So_why_it_idiocy_my
I find the link interesting in the fact that the reviewer says everything was done to avoid problems and claims of unfairness, yet it seems the data is not being shared so the study can be verified independently. I would note that many who follow AGW do not consider replication necessary–just peer-review. They see no reason to repeat the study or go over the data again.
Re. your link Richard:
Every effort was made to ensure that the survey was conducted as scientifically and as ethically as is humanly possible…… Even when intruders downloaded whole sections of the skeptical science site, nothing was found of any scientific value to the promoters of the view that climate change / agw isn't real.
Well, they certainly would not pass for jury duty, would they? "AGW is real" is a bias that should exclude this person from such a study. "I don't know, one way or the other" passes muster. To say "every effort was made" is false, since the most crucial bias was ignored completely.
I'm not sure why the paper claims the raters were "anonymized"
To help sell the "objectivity" of the survey to the MSM, of course
I would note that many who follow AGW do not consider replication necessary–just peer-review.
I think you are too kind. Many who follow AGW would consider the very thought of replication, to be a blasphemy.
Despite all of this however, John Cook is still spruiking his paper at Skeptical Science. As few if any of his readers are likely to read the posts here, they are still and will remain, unaware of the flaws in the paper. How can this be overcome if UQ are not willing to/see no need to/are too timid to respond to your legitimate enquiries? Was the survey funded by the University or the ARC or both or some other funding agency?
Manicbeancounter
Richard Tol says at #3.1.1.2
The link concludes
Even when intruders downloaded whole sections of the skeptical science site, nothing was found of any scientific value to the promoters of the view that climate change / agw isn't real.
Here, here I say. Let it never be said that a "skeptical" science site be guilty of voicing doubt.
"nothing was found of any scientific value"
and what else would one expect to find at SkS ?
ExWarmist
Richard – excellent work.
Looks like Cooks Propaganda isn't Science.
Manicbeancounter–Is not fascinating that "intruders downloaded whole sections of the skeptical science site" is what the blog owners say about a public website. Of course, we must assume (since SkS will never tell) that they were referring to the forum sections that were not supposed to be public yet there they were, out there for all to read. Then, when people read them, OHHHHH those aren't public! Of course, nothing of any scientific value was found–just information that allowed skeptics to reveal that SkS was guilty of mudslinging. I noted the careful wording–as did ExWamist.
If these persons are not bright enough to understand the Internet and how computers work, why are we to trust them with computer modeling? They can't correctly set up a separate blog section that the public can't enter, let alone do statistics and advanced modeling. Okay, these guys are not the actual climate scientists. However, considering the site had the same thing happen in the past, and no computer geek science climate advocate rushed into help…..Either they want it public or maybe the real scientists are not in love with these guys after all.
Manicbc;
In the interests of scholarship, and representing the flag, please use the correct "Hear, hear" when supporting a post. Brit Parl., short for "Hear the man!"
"Here, here" is what nanny used to say to draw your attention.
Schitzree
"John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11 mates down at the pub) found…"
We appear to be assuming in all this that Cook has 11 mates.
Big assumption I would have thought.
Presumably Cook's mates were paid to come up with answers he wanted.
Why did the other 12 leave – out of disgust?
Don Monfort
Why didn't you clearly mention in your letter that the raters were the authors themselves?
Graeme, you really haven't understood the survey at all. It had nothing to do with who believed in what, it was about comparing the public's understanding of an author's belief with the author's self-reported belief.
I don't understand why Richard Tol is saying there were only 12 participants – I remember doing the survey and so did a colleague of mine. I also don't understand why he talks about 4000 question, I remember 10 abstracts, each followed by a rating question. The abstracts were all fairly short.
The result showed that the authors believed their papers provided greater support for the human origin of current climate change than did their readers.
So – no idea what Tol is on about, and clearly very few here have the slightest clue about the topic they are commenting on.
MAGGOT shouldn't be busy handing out propaganda for your green communist masters for the federal election?
Gee, Margot, you have just provided the knife in the back for the survey. Thank you. If Cook used people with your obvious EXTREME bias, then the study wasn't about the public's understanding at all, but indeed, about his followers beliefs. No REAL scientific study, rather than a marketing survey, which is what Cook actually did, would ever include such extreme bias unless it was evened out by having Watts or Nova or Malloy fill out the survey in equal numbers to the faithful followers. IF it were a legitimate study, Cook would have found people who had not studied global warming to any degree and got their opinions, in addition to those who have. What Cook did was, once again, a MARKETING SURVEY designed to SELL climate change. Sadly, you don't seem to understand the difference between marketing research and hard science. Marketing just wants you to buy something–no one cares if the claims are true. In fact, doing a marketing survey is often looking for the most effective lie/half-truth to sell the product.
Now go back to the faithful followers. This is my only comment to you.
@Margot
The information comes straight from paper.
At the moment, Cook is repeating the exercise with members of the public. I guess you and your colleague were involved in that. There are no results of that yet.
I have been trying to point out for a few years now that the strictly following temperature data EXCLUDES all areas responsibly for creating this data.
Also the full data would be bogus to the constant movement and changes that have occurred in 4.5 billion years when the study would be ONLY specific for a few insignificant years to the vast changes that have occurred on this planet.
Funding is the driver to keeping the public ignorant to our current crop of so called "experts" who have managed to encourage bad technology and bad policies…
What on earth are you talking about? Have you read "this study"?
What on earth are you talking about?
While an undergraduate in science, I was required to present all of my data and demonstrate how I arrived at my conclusions, or have my paper thrown out. This may seem a bit harsh but it was the standard at the time for undergrads.
Yet, this is not a requirement for these professional academics? Wow.
Kevin Lohse
Political activism has different rules to Science, even if it's dressed up as such.
I suppose that's Political Science?
Oh no, I am surrounded by Political Science, and it is far worse.
Results of research in Pol. Sci. are highly dependent on time and geography. Ten minutes, or the number on the office door, will produce a significantly different answers to the same question.
Wake up. You are referring to the practices in real science not climate science, where the rules are totally different and made up as you go along.
Freshman: C-
Sophomore: D
Junior: Course expulsion
Senior: University expulsion
Each of 12 people answered 4,000 questions.
Writing 4,000 intelligible and useful questions would be difficult.
Getting anyone to agree to answer 4,000 questions would be difficult.
Answering 4,000 questions would be difficult.
I have written survey questions. Tried each out on folks. Asked for comments. Rewritten them. Tried them again.
Did anyone at UQ sign off on this 4,000 question survey? If so who? If not, why not?
Richard Tol must be wearing chest-high waders to be able to muck around in this cesspool.
Give Richard respect for doing so.
[Asking] 4,000 questions would be difficult..
Given the identified respondents to date, perhaps they all submitted between 300 and 400 questions each, and then discarded those that were too similar?
Craig King
But our very own president loved it. John Cook + 11 buddies got the favorable attention of the POTUS , that in itself should be a cause for wonder in the minds of many. One could be forgiven for thinking that there must have been some form of collusion between those presidential tweeters and Mr. John Cook.
No collusion. Just two socialists who are all talk and very little action strolling down the same path together. Should Cook say something that upsets the POTUS, he'd be dropped in an instant and vilified. It's all about appearance. Cook would undoubtedly attack Obama if he dared to say, allow the Keystone Pipeline or allow nuclear plants. It's just a casual meeting walking down a path. (Neither Cook nor Obama has enough character to actually care about who they side with–and both appear to be narcissists who love to see their own names in print and video.)
Tommy Roche
@klem Post-normal science, though in the realm of Climate Science it appears to have gone way beyond what Funtowicz and Ravetz had in mind.
Lionell Griffith
Cook was likely one of many paid to find what they did even if they had to [snip] the data to support the findings. It is the work of small desperate men pushed to beyond their limit. To a man, they had sold out long ago and were unable to resist. Their primary guilt is having sold out in the first place.
Who was it that pushed them to do what they did? They are the people to go after. Bring them down, and the Cooks of the world will dissolve into the nothingness they are. Otherwise, the higher ups will find an endless supply of Cooks to do more of the same. Our so called "progressive" society produces intellectual and philosophical thugs in almost limitless numbers. It is a return to the mental dark ages.
Richard Tol deserves a medal.
Admire the class of his response.
Perhaps commenters can continue in that spirit? (There's no need to exaggerate here — The barefaced truth is quite enough.) I will ask mods to snip.
And if perchance there is a new science minister in a few weeks, perhaps we can help them find places for those desperately needed cuts.
Getting the data/methodology Tol wants from this bunch is going to be tough.
I say, good luck.
Didn't somebody's dog once eat their data, in response to an FOI request in the UK?
No Rerecke, Cook's data came after the dog had eaten.
The rate of progress in climate science ranges between hurried and… peristaltic.
Gee I though it was A GOAT
No, it got lost in a "messy office".
Brandon Shollenberger
Can someone explain the math in this post to me? From the .pdf linked to in that post:
Some data are available online: year of publication, title, journal, authors, classification, and rating (if reconciled rating. More information – specifically, 1st and 2nd rating, 3rd and 4th rating (if applicable), rater ID (1-4), time of rating (1-4), author rating, survey protocol, and lab notes – was requested in vain, in contrast to best practice.
Of the data listed here, all the categories have been released save time of rating and rater ID, and we don't even know the former exists. On top of that, we have the category ratings for the abstracts. According to Tol, we're missing maybe 50,000 data points, yet on his own site, we can find over 200,000 data points. There's no way that can add up to 43%. And that's ignoring all the data about "year of publication, title, journal [and] authors."
How could approximately 50,000 more data points make us jump from 43% to 100%? And if 57% of the data isn't missing, why exaggerate the value?
I also asked for the survey protocol but, violating all codes of practice, none seems to exist. The paper and data do hint at what was really done. There is no trace of a pre-test. Rating training was done during the first part of the survey, rather than prior to the survey. The survey instrument was altered during the survey, and abstracts were added. Scales were modified after the survey was completed.
RT's dissecting tenacity is truly admirable. A Cookensian Soufflé turns out to be a Consensus Crumble.
Each delayed second John Cook et al. prevaricate another nail is hammered into the coffins of their careers. They doom themselves to fester in the 'consensus' for the rest of their natural days.
A.D. Everard
A truly brilliant letter. The University of Queensland has no choice but to do the right thing, or show themselves in exceedingly poor light. I look forward to reading the response.
Has anyone contacted Prof. Daniel Kammen about this matter?
Kammen has vigorously argued that the missing data should not be released, in clear contrast to the policy of the journal he edits.
I would be keen to see that argument… or does he just say "It shouldn't be released"?
Richard The Great
A true victory for science. All kudos to my namesake. Any scientific work that does not subject itself to falsifiability (scientific method) automatically removes itself from the pedestal of science and lands up in the garbage bin of failed theories, pseudscience, lysenkoism and irrational whacko beliefs. I see the mere request for data having been denied as process of cleansing science from the unscientifi method and setting scientists apart from wannabee non-scientists. A job well done.
Congratulations Richard Tol on a very classy piece of work.
You've made your point calmly and reasonably while sticking to the actual facts and sound scientific methodologies.
I salute you and your excellent work, sir!
I suppose that anyone cooking the books would prefer that no one should have access to the books. If this excrebable paper was printed on tissue paper it at least could be used in the lavatory?
jorgekafkazar
"…this excrebable paper…"
A new portmanteau word. Excrexxxx + babble = excrebable. Perfect.
meltemian
Sadly I think it was supposed to be 'execrable' but I do prefer your definition.
Seems the data has committed a crime.. or more likely been framed..
Anyway.. verdict… never to be released.
ps.. happens to a LOT of climate change data..
One wonders how much the data was tortured to achieve the AGW confession… was the Geneva Convention violated? 🙂
That is because climate data is bad; very, very, bad. It deserves to be punished most severely
@Bulldust,
The UN Resolution 217A(III) of Dec 10 1948, shorthand "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" includes Article 21(2) (in part here) "Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country." Article 27(1) "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."
The Universal Declaration is not a treaty, so it does not directly create legal obligations for countries. However, it is an expression of the fundamental values which are shared by all members of the international community. And it has had a profound influence on the development of international human rights law. Some argue that because countries have consistently invoked the Declaration for more than sixty years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law. Further, the Universal Declaration has given rise to a range of other international agreements which are legally binding on the countries that ratify them.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/what-universal-declaration-human-rights
So we cant water board the data because we would be in breach of their digital rights? 🙂
It is already being held in solitary confinement, for an extended period, which is, in itself, a contravention of UN Resolution 217.
I also notice that you have a green thumb. Somebody's aim is off to the left today.
"To the left" Haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaa (big belly laugh)
Thats a good one RW
Whoops, that red thumb was me…..
but, don't worry, I'm all right.
They have well and truly compensated for it now..
This link might be useful in the not too distant future:
https://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/4.20.05-research-misconduct#Policy
First thumb a red, you may have tread on someones toes bringing that document to our attention. Go no further than the first two dot points.
Examples of research misconduct include the following:
(1) Fabrication of data or results;
(2) Falsification of data or results;
There are no signs of misconduct.
Agreed, misconduct infers you knew your results were rubbish so you tried to cover them up through fabrication. Incompetence on the other hand enables you to be blissfully unaware.
Streetcred
Who wouda thunk, eh? UQ mired in it up to its armpits again.
Hopefully the incoming (adult) federal government will review its grant criteria in the near future.
The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 3053
[…] on AGW indicates incredible amounts of honesty. He says John Cook's data in his paper is "Incorrect, Invalid, and Unrepresentative." From the post: "I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that […]
Reminds one of the phases of a mouse plague nearing its end. First there are just a few more around than normal, then suddenly they are breeding fast on an abundance of handouts food coinciding with a relative shortage of predators (anything that limits their potential for exponential expansion, aka sceptics, principled researchers, etc).
During the plague, everywhere you go mice are runnng around fouling everything they could run over, contaminating what was previously understood to be a clean environment exposed to plenty of sunlight (a.ka. scientific rigour, hypothesis validation, confidence limits of results, provision of all data, publication standards, ethics, transparency, etc) and "eating anything they can get their teeth into" (a,ka. grants, entitlements, awards, notoriety, etc) in a massive feeding frenzy. Meanwhile, Nature's correction factor (blogs etc) was slowly building.
When daylight (exposure to the truth) is shone on mice, which prefer to hide as a collective in dark places (a.ka. universities, journals, the MSM, bureaucracies, political parties and affiliated organisations, NGO's, etc), they run like hell to get out of your way and try to find another place to hide. Some might even mistakenly run up your trouser leg only to meet a crushing end before they could cause some damage further along. Some might then say "their goose is Cook-ed"!
The only difference between the CAGW plague and "normal" plagues is many of the mice morphed into rats, not just of the Rattus rattus tribe, but several new species previously unknown to science, many easily identified by a green exterior but still bleed red, emanating even from places previously known to assidiously rid themselves of rats, including peak science acadamies, research establishments (CSIRO, NASA, et al).
The copious volumes of grant money wasted food left lying around must have been contaminated by radioactive isotopic forms of gases used to enhance plant growth in selected research green glass houses, e.g. carbon dioxide or nitrous dioxide, which is no laughing matter. If only they knew it was toxic? A diagnostic characteristic of toxicity is a prevalence to gather stones to throw, known also to occur with pack rats. This often results in many rats being left out in the cold in terminal decline, culminating in a sticky end with no places left to hide.
Very Al-e-Gor[e]-ical, I am sure.
BeCol
Is there any chance to see the 4,000 survey questions??
We all know if the survey questions are biased or the answer check boxes are conformed then you will get the biased result you want. i.e.
Does Cook believe in AGW? (select 1, 2 or 3)
1) yes
2) correct
3) agreed
There is a survey over at our beloved Auntie (ABC) that does much the same!!
good luck to richard tol.
however, while he plays nice, bbc was busy with the following rubbish yesterday and, naturally, abc has it today. washington post, huffington post, christian science monitor, & others find space for it too, of course. so much easier than telling the truth about hurricanes, or looking into cook et al's claims which they all previously published without question:
28 Aug: ABC: Push to name hurricanes after climate change deniers
Environmental activists in the US have launched an online campaign urging the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to name hurricanes after politicians who are dismissive of climate change…
But the campaigners have drawn up a list of American politicians they say deny climate change and obstruct climate policy…
Daniel Kessler is with the campaign group 350 Action, which is behind the tongue-in-cheek idea.
But he is not hopeful it will be successful in altering the naming convention.
"There are a number of people who refuse to accept the basic science of climate change which is now understood by every scientific academy in the world to be occurring and to be caused by man," he said.
"We wanted to highlight in somewhat of a satirical way their intransigence and make sure that people know that they're obstructing progress."
The United States has been hit by powerful hurricanes in recent years…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/push-to-name-hurricanes-after-climate-change-deniers/4917206
when bbc ran with this, i thought anthony, steve mac, jo & other sceptic names were on their tiny minds, & was thinking it will only draw attention to CAGW sceptics but, unsurprisingly, it's pure republican politicians on the list.
wouldn't it be more appropriate for them to name the hurricanes after the CAGW alarmists, who wrongly claim hurricanes are more prevalent as a reult of CAGW?
NoFixedAddress
Imagine the positive spin a Republican politician could gain from this,
"Senator …… , a true force of nature!";
"Congressman ……… , will blow your feeble arguments away!";
and of course the Republicans can then come back with,
"Al Gore, cannot get the spin in the right direction";
"Too many Cooks and all you create is hot air!".
Republican politicians, oh that's a shame.
I was looking forward to hearing on the news that "Tornado Anthony Watts hit the east coast this morning at 100mph"
for the second time today, i've devoted a fair amount of time to searching for an adelaide advertiser top story as per abc's 'what the papers say' on tony delroy's nightlife last nite, but to no avail. no bunch of search terms or search of the advertiser's website brings up anything connected to the story.
what i heard related to the truly extraordinary increases in the cost of electricity & water at adelaide or south australian schools, & how the percentage of these costs on school budgets is way out of whack with what they were/should be. as i didn't hear the advertiser reporter on abc mention the "carbon tax" as one of the causes, i wanted to check the article, but it's nowhere to be found.
anyone in south australia know of this story?
pat;
on News page 11, reporter Craig Cook.
There is no mention of the carbon tax or causes in the article except from the South Australian Primary Principals Association vice president Pam Kent said that the increases in utility costs "reflect the domestic situation".
The rises are high. One school has estimated being $40,000 over its water budget this year, and the average increase is $15,000 per school. Electricity and gas average increase is $7,000 per school.
Telecommunications average increase $900 and maintenance average increase $8000.
The schools either have to get the parents to raise more money or it will come out of their budget from the government. As the latter is usually spent 90% on salaries, that means job cuts.
The SA Government is obviously hoping that the extra $17 million will be raised by the parents.
Blame isn't directed anywhere but anger locally is directed at the desalination plant which is running to avoid expensive penalties if shut early. The Flannery White Elephant was hastily approved then doubled in size without fanfare, and produces water at 4 times the normal cost. (O/T but SA is pumping more water from the Murray this year than the previous 2 years, and the year has been above average rainfall).
The public has been slower to associate electricity price hikes with the government's obsession with wind farms and PV panels, and the carbon tax gets little mention.
Again O/T but SA has the highest percent wind "capacity" and the highest percent homes with solar. Also the highest electricity rates and you should read TonyfromOz on why).
Also O/T is that the State Government has racked up enormous debts for which we have little to show, and is showing all the signs of terminal incompetence. Unfortunately the Opposition has managed to lose the last 2 elections and doesn't appear that determined to win the one in May 2014.
pat:
I don't usually buy the Advertiser, so am not a source. I will keep the article if you want it to see it all.
Contact me through Jo.
27 Aug: Daily Mail: Inderdeep Bains: An idyll blighted by 18,000 solar panels: Seen from the sky, the reality of alternative energy
Photographer Tim Woodcock: 'Many of these alternative energy sources are manufactured abroad, in China, for example.
'It is very easy to say that a system is 'green' when all the energy and environmental damage and cost is made elsewhere.'
He added: 'Obviously there is a lot of interest in alternative forms of energy. But the question remains how many of these will actually provide a real alternative to fossil fuels – so far, very few.
'No one seems to have the courage to tell the truth about energy alternatives.'…
Another energy firm Kronos Solar has set out plans to build Britain's largest solar farm, on agricultural land in Houghton, Hampshire.
Under the proposals, 225,456 panels would be laid out across an area the size of 100 football pitches. The scheme is intended to produce enough electricity for 31,500 people…
People who set up their own solar panels benefit from the feed-in tariff.
This has been slashed by around two-thirds over the past year after the Government set the level far too high.
However people who signed up in the early days in 2010-11 have their fee fixed for 25 years and continue to benefit…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403265/An-idyll-blighted-18-000-solar-panels-Seen-sky-reality-alternative-energy.html
The WUWT Hot Sheet for Tuesday August 27th, 2013 | Watts Up With That?
[…] … I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that, contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.Furthermore, the data showed patterns that cannot be explained by either the data gathering process as described in the paper or by chance. This is documented. I asked Mr Cook again for the data so as to find a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the paper. As that was unsuccessful, also after a plea to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Mr Cook's work place,… http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incor… […]
Jo;
You comment that Cook should have expected "other scientists" to question him. The word "other" implies he is one, which is ludicrous. At least put a strike through that word, or delete it entirely!
Peter C
I see what you mean!
John Cook is listed on the University of Queensland website as a post doctoral fellow. The site says he graduated ( they don't say what with or when), and that he has a background in physics and postgrad astrophysics.
For some reason they do not list his degrees, which I would have expected on a university web site.
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/researchers/john-cook1
I suppose that makes him a scientist, although he does not seem to think or act in a way which you, or I would expect a scientist to do
Eddie Sharpe
Would a normal postdoctoral fellow already have a doctorate ?
From a New York Times Opinion Pages piece (?)
I studied physics at university and majored in astrophysics in my post-grad honors year.
Where in the world is an honours year represented as 'post-grad' ?
Is this an example of the communication practised by climate communication fellows ?
Is the Change Institute of Queensland full of gilded lillies ?
Not too long ago, John Cook was part of the PR team of the GCI. He is now listed as a researcher and a post-doc. That may be because he has recently submitted his PhD (in psychology, with Stephan Lewandowksy).
"PhD (in psychology, with Stephan Lewandowksy)"
which is very obviously a pre-requisite for being a climate scientist. ? 😉
The ONLY pre-requisite !!
Has he submitted that PhD to UWA?
UWA for sure.
Note that I'm not sure that he submitted. Some universities give the title "post-doc" on graduation, others on successful defense, some on submission, but none (that I know) on being enrolled as a PhD candidate.
Thanks Eddie,
According to John Cook ( himself), in that article, he attended university and reached an Honours year. That should mean he has a BSc(Hons). But did he actually graduate? From which University?
Richard Toll says that he has submitted a PHD thesis in psychology. Can you do that without a bachelor degree in the subject?
He is not called Dr Cook, so I suppose that his thesis has yet been passed. Could his thesis be based on the published articles?
Originally, the SkS site stated that Cook had a degree in physics, though he stated he spent most of his time doodling in class (or something to that effect). Physics study in Australia must be different than elsewhere, I think.
Considering he got a degree in physics paying no attention in class, the requirements for a PhD could be simply that you can draw attention to the University. Actually, there are all kinds of routes to PhD's, not all involving long academic study. Psychology would be field where there is NO hard or concrete science required. PhD's seem pretty much meaningless today–my apologies to those of you who actually earned one. However, I know people with master's degrees who never wrote a thesis, etc. Academic requirements are purely subjective nowadays.
Now here's a ghastly thought.
It is possible to gain a PhD "by publication". This requires the publishing of papers in journals
It could be that Cook got his PhD by his publications done with Lewindopey !!
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think"
John 'The Cartoonist' Cook
I really do wonder how one gets a physics degree while doodling in class. Again, physics at UQ must be very different from the rest of the world's physics.
Hiding/losing/refusal to release/ data would most likely be the hallmark of the scientist with something to hide.
Let's not forget Phil Jones's refusal to release the basic data from where the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit obtains its temperature records. Then Dr Jones claims that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". How about the Cimategate emails where scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, despite FOI's. And then there's the strategic elimination of the Mediaeval Warm Period.Etc etc.
Why are we surprised when Cook claims "confidentiality"?
This is almost on topic and was probably covered somewhere else already
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/08/21/respected-senior-scientists-urge-suppressing-climate-evidence
Here we have 3 warmbots telling a newby to the politics of the scam not to publish a paper because it would be fodder for us.
If you know anyone called Galileo Galilei tell them to get out dodge before its too late.
[direct link to Judith Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-and-motivated-reasoning/ ] ED
The Cook survey was flawed from the beginning unless there were linguists who could read abstracts in other languages. For this reason alone, one cannot claim 'consensus'.
I'm a U of Q graduate and I'm ashamed.
Yes Geoff i have worked with the UQ a number of times in the past
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=26422
Incompetence is teh word that springs to mind
This is turning into a meeting of "U of Q Anonymous".
RW,
Here is one example, the rocket has rifling (it spins) so when it gets into space it can work out its position from the sun and then re orientate itself for re entry. On the day of the launch someone within UQ realised it was also a full moon. This scenario was never envisaged until then, several hours of code hacking later they fixed the problem but now the steam driven on board processor could not do all the other important things it needed to do, as i said incompetence.
Many years ago at UWA, the physics department built a solar-powered hot air balloon to show off at the annual open day.
The balloon was supposed to have been tethered but it broke away as the physicists had calculated the lift using 1 sun insolation (1kW/m^2). In Perth, you can get 1.3 suns. It got a lot hotter than the physicists calculated in their basement labs.
Engineers laughed. Air traffic control for Perth airspace spit the dummy as the balloon was made completely of plastic (mostly black and clear polyethylene) and didn't even have a reflector so that they could track it with radar.
Uh, Hi everyone. My name is Andrew. I'm a former UQuaholic, but I've been sober for 13 years 8 months.
4000 questions?
A scientific Masochism Tango (with apologies to Tom Lehrer)
Drapetomania
Cricket noises trying to defend this train wreck of a paper from the $CAGW$ trolls..
Game-Set and Match
Again.. 🙂
Sorry this is off topic but I can't let it go unnoticed.
http://toryaardvark.com/2013/08/27/todays-scores-from-the-arctic-russian-coastguard-1-greenpeace-0/
Go the Russians !!!!
There is some confusion about the "4,000 questions". Two questions were asked about each abstract: What is it about? What is its position on human-made climate change? These questions were repeated over and over again, but for different abstracts.
There were a total of 26,848 ratings, so that makes a rough average of 2*27k/12 = 4,000.
This is an average. After 16k ratings, one rater had clocked up 2,500 ratings. The 11th most active rater had only 500.
So lets go through the check list of what could go wrong:
1, Only the abstracts were used which may/could give a different impression as to what was expressed in detail in the body of the paper
2, The level of english comprehension of the author
3, The level of english comprehension of the rater
4, The interpretation of what was read by the rater (as opposed to comprehension)
5, Translation issues between native language of author into english (chinese to english = Chenglish etc)
6, If the 11th highest rating was only 500 then (as you have mentioned) results could easily be skewed.
7, Range of papers initially selected to be viewed by the raters
Anymore?
Would it not have been easier, quicker, more accurate to simply scan the abstracts into a computer and run a word recognition program?
I am saddened to see what passes for science now days now wonder engineering students refer to science students as "science chumps".
You omit the commonest error. Most papers on climate change do not explicitly test the hypothesis of human-made climate change. Only a few hundred papers do that. Most papers are about impacts of climate change, or climate policy, or a particular feature of atmospheric physics, or … Many of these paper do contain some words on human-made climate change in the abstract, and were thus counted as endorsements.
I agree that a word recognition program should have been used.
Sorry Richard you misunderstood point 1, that was my mistake (which ironically proves my point) Let me rephrase point 1.
If they only read the abstract it may mention AGW or words to that effect and ne considered in the "yes" column however the actual paper may shed more light on "AGW" in regards to the paper which could put it into the "not sure column" or possibly the "no" column.
I think what we need to remember here is that this was an english exercise not a scientific one.
Sure. An abstract may be misleading. All too often, the abstract was written before the research was finished, and thus reflects research plans rather than results.
That's not what I meant, though.
9166 papers (out of 11944) are on the impacts of climate change or on climate policy. 3147 endorsements (out of 3896) are from impact and policy papers.
So, papers that are on the effects of climate change on malaria, and papers that are on the effects of carbon tax on employment, were counted as support of the hypothesis of human-made climate change. Even if the authors of those papers believe in (C)AGW, their area of expertise is irrelevant to the question at hand. These papers should have been disregarded, but were not.
Incidentally, the consensus on AGW is much larger in the impact and policy literature than in the climate literature (in the narrow sense of the word): 99.4% v 92.8%. Cook's trend towards greater consensus is entirely explained by the rapid increase in the number of impact and policy papers.
The consensus would rather have to be large in the impact and policy literature. They don't give grants to study the effects of stable sea-levels. "How will we prepare if seas stay the same!"
Though I can see openings… How about a grant to help employees of renewable energy in a post-climate-scare world when everyone has realized it was a waste of money?
Yep. PTSD, flashbacks in the middle of the night, people spitting on them when they learn of their old job, an inability to integrate back into society, sudden remorse over all the villagers who died from their actions, and involuntary shaky hands and stuttering speech every time they pick up their power bill. All sounds very much like Gore Warm Syndrome from Depleted Cranium submissions.
We'll get Doc Lewandowsky to use his expertise developing a misinformation therapy for it right away.
Right away from Australia anyhow.
That was something I considered after reading the "study". When reading research papers, one often does find that the actual paper makes far weaker or no comment on climate change being caused by humans than the abstract leads one to believe. A more interesting study would involve getting people to read the studies and say what they think the paper reported.
Perhaps something like the software that assess 'tone', 'polarisation', 'activity', 'personalisation' and a whole stack of other attributes of publications such as used in this report of global media activity on climate change, carbon credits, etc.
http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#visualsummary
Eli Rabett
As usual Richard is so excised that he mangles the conclusion of Cook, et al
The paper shows that a consensus exists amongst scientists that climate change is real, driven by human actions and potentially dangerous and that the number of dissenting papers in the literature is small. The fact that the body of the literature has moved over to consequences and policy to limit those consequences, is evidence of that consensus, not a contradiction. This was obvious six years ago when Eli looked into the issue and he is but a humble bunny and not a world famous economisht
Further, what surveys exist on those who study the physical basis of climate change show even stronger support for Cook, et al's conclusions
However, Eli is happy to note that you no longer are making the silly argument about how you were dissed because the vast majority of your papers were not considered. It is indeed a shame that only 10 papers out of 122 from the the economist most-cited by the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change were returned from a Web of Science search on "climate change" since you no longer judge your papers as relevant to what you mistakenly consider to be the central issue.
I suppose if you actually find Cook believable, it's not surprise that you would also think Google searches somehow "prove" what people read. I find Google a pain in the you-know-where and use other search engines that don't rank the same way Google does. You do realize there are all kinds of ways to raise one's ranking on a Google search, including having employees and undergraduates search for specific pages over and over and over. There are real-life examples of this. So Google only proves that the net is a vast wasteland of commerce and useless information arranged in the worst possible way to make retrieval of the desired information next to impossible. If you have any doubt, there are a number of words that will return very interesting results that have nothing to do with the search you were hoping for. I won't include any examples–you're bright, you can figure it out.
As for the alleged agreement, most surveys are so flawed I can't begin to cover the errors in a comment. Plus, science is NOT decided by survey. No one surveyed scientists to "prove" science until science became a game of statistical manipulation of data. Gravity requires no survey–computer modeling does. Because there are hundreds of possible outcomes to the models and many may have the same probability coefficient or even higher coefficients and better fit. Consensus forces people to go with the "popular" or "politically correct" answer and ignore all others.
Need we mention again that since much funding comes from a government whose employees seem in love with the green philosophy, why would a rational person think a government employee would want to fund research on why climate change is not happening. Obama just said it was. Then he finds out money was spent to prove it's not (okay, a big stretch on how bright Obama is) to show how very wrong he is? Can you say "Downsizing" of said employee's position? Even if one's supervisor finds out, there are consequences. If I worked for a Republican fund distribution agency and gave out money for elections, how long would I last if they found I was handing out money to Democrats?
At the end of the fifth paragraph of Dr. Tol's letter, there's a short sentence with a link in the last two words (the ones in bold text): "This is documented here." The link doesn't work, because it's really two links:
http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-consensus-project-update.html
http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/biases-in-consensus-data.html
which became smooshed together.
An easy fix would be to rework the sentence to read, "This is documented here and here." Then put one link behind each "here".
Thanks!Oops! – Jo
stefanthedenier
G'day cobbers, slow down a bit
Listen to this: "The Russian Coast Guard has threatened to open fire on the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise unless it leaves Russian territorial waters.
Greenpeace have just made a massive miscalculation of who to mess with in the Arctic, in this case Russia."
And the last paragraph is the cracking great summary!!
"Greenpeace really thought it would be business as usual for them in the Arctic, but there is a lesson to be learned for them here, all countries are not governed by an albeit dwindling band of Green Liberal politicians like those in Europe and currently in Australia, some countries are governed by real politicians that put the needs of their country and their people ahead of pandering to a noisy micro minority with an irrational fear of a trace gas that is essential to all life on earth."
Can we get this reporter on a refugee boat ASAP!!
no doubt this will end up in other Fairfax titles. if u link to it, note Sunstein's name doesn't appear until the end of the ridiculous, almost unreadable piece. Obama recently appointed Sunstein to serve on the NSA Oversight Panel, which shocked pretty much everyone, given some of his crazy pronouncements over the years:
28 Aug: Brisbane Times: Bloomberg: Cass R. Sunstein: How human psychology is holding back climate change action
(Cass R. Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University professor at Harvard Law School, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the co-author of "Nudge" and author of "Simpler: The Future of Government.")
The first obstacle is that people tend to evaluate risks by way of "the availability heuristic," which leads them to assess the probability of harm by asking whether a readily available example comes to mind.
An act of terrorism, for example, is likely to be both available and salient, and hence makes people fear that another such event will occur (whether it is likely to or not). So, too, a recent crime or accident can activate attention and significantly inflate people's assessment of risk.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-human-psychology-is-holding-back-climate-change-action-20130828-2sp1b.html
Astonishingly (although I'm not really surprised) here in the UK our dear Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, one Ed Davey (think Wayne Rooney's elder and slightly deranged brother) vociferously quoted the '97%' figure in a recent tv interview…
Fellow Dane Lomborg points out that the VC is called Høj (High) rather than Høy (meaningless, fortunately).
Peter Crawford
Richard, you are a top chap, but get a decent haircut.
Regulars and Jo, the mission to confront Cook's co-conspirator Lewandowsky (they share the same "ideation" whatever TF that is) in his Bristol lair is still on but I need to secure the services of Terry Abraham , a top outdoors film-maker. I will try to make the journey across Wales from north-west to south-east as entertaining and humorous as possible. It is very lovely country. But I will be polite to Lew if A) He agrees to meet me B) Terry can film everything.
Cheers from Old North Wales
Some times the world really does confuse me. A world where an essentially political 'survey' is published to bolster arguments that could cost the world trillions of $$$. A survey that rests significantly on data resulting from some guy interviewing himself and a few of his friends.
If the CEO of a pharmaceutical company said "Hey, this drug I'm selling really works-I tried it out on myself and some of my loyal employees", then 97% people would probably just laugh.
EU seeks more feedback on carbon central bank proposal
LONDON, Aug 28 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The EU Commission has asked several stakeholders to provide more detail on how a proposal to regularly adjust supply of carbon permits in its Emissions Trading Scheme could work, a move observers said means the EU is seriously considering launching a central bank for carbon permits…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2540743?&ref=searchlist
97% of scientists cant tell the difference between butter and margarine.
29 Aug: Yahoo: ABC: Visions at crossroads as carbon farm reality bites
The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association wants Henbury Station in central Australia to resume operations as a cattle property and plans for what was intended to be the nation's pioneering carbon credits farm to be abandoned…
Mr Bowen says the science that saw Henbury Station turned into a carbon farm was flawed.
"The methodology and the principles were based around a carbon methodology that had not been verified, that had not been tested or established and was a theoretical model," he said.
"We were concerned that this would create an artificial bubble in land values and see land go out of production."
The Federal Environment Department, handed over the $9 million to help purchase Henbury Station says it remains committed to a conservation outcome at the property.
A spokeswoman says the department wants to talk about plans to secure long-term conservation management of the land…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/18702013/visions-at-crossroads-as-carbon-farm-reality-bites/
unbelievable! not really…
29 Aug: Business Spectator: Libs eye 'G4' carbon agreement
An Abbott government would use Australia's term as chair of the G20 to help broker agreement between the world's four major carbon polluters to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the Australian reports.
Environment spokesman Greg Hunt told the newspaper a "G4 agreement", involving China, the US, India and the EU, was a "personal project" he would pursue at next year's G20 meeting in Brisbane.
Mr Hunt said Australia's chairing of the G20, from December 1, presented an "enormous opportunity" to help broker a deal…
Mr Hunt also proposed a global rainforest recovery plan to help halve the 8 billion tonnes of annual CO2 emissions caused by rainforest destruction, which he said could be achieved by including rainforest preservation within current and future international agreements.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/8/29/climate/libs-eye-g4-carbon-agreement
YET ANOTHER REASON TO ENSURE THAT SOME OF THE SMALLER ANTI GLOBAL WARMING PARTIES ARE GIVEN A HIGHER PREFERENCE THAN THE COALITION IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION IN ORDER TO KILL THIS GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD !!!!!!!!
the grim future for business:
28 Aug: Guardian: Tim Smedley: Mandatory carbon reporting: the implications for business – live chat
Join a panel of experts online, on this page, on Wednesday 4 September, 1-3pm (BST) to discuss the impact and implications of mandatory carbon reporting for business
The introduction of mandatory carbon reporting for London Stock Exchange-listed companies, announced in June 2012, is the latest initiative. Although some ambiguities are yet to be sorted out, we now know one thing for sure: from October, companies will have to report their global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in their financial reports…
Additional legislation in the Companies Act makes it the legal responsibility of the board of directors to "state the annual quantity of emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from activities for which that company is responsible", with severe penalties (up to six months in prison) for any director who makes a misleading or false statement. "Carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e) is defined as emissions data from the six main Kyoto gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and hydrofluorocarbons). Defra has also released a methodology for converting, for example, litres of fuel used, number of miles driven or tonnes of waste into kilograms of CO2e.
But what impact will this have?…
The challenges of data collection, particularly for companies that operate across multiple premises scattered throughout different regions, will be huge. This is likely to prompt an increase in the number of organisations requiring environmental reporting from their suppliers, and create a whole new market for environmental consultants…
David Harris, director of ESG at FTSE, recently told Guardian Sustainable Business that the new regulations will be an improvement for investors seeking to integrate climate change considerations into investment decisions…
CREDITS: This content is brought to you by Guardian Sustainable Business in association with TATA Consultancy Services. Produced by Guardian Professional to a brief agreed and paid for by TATA Consultancy Services.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/mandatory-carbon-reporting-implications-business-live-chat
Carbon500
Utter and complete idiocy. A whole new wave of BS bureaucracy looms.
Small but significant victory
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100232949/wind-farms-are-a-breach-of-human-rights-says-un-no-really/
the billion is 1000 times more than RBS reported figure for 2012, which only included emissions produced through its use of fossil fuels for electricity and business travel. i say let's go with the "World Development Movement" methodology (which RBS disputes, of course)and maybe the banks will back off the CAGW alarmism quick smart!
29 Aug: Scotsman: Julia Horton: RBS' carbon footprint up
FINANCING "dirty" energy around the world could make the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) responsible for almost a billion tonnes of carbon emissions last year, according to a damning new report published today.
Research by the World Development Movement calculated that including emissions from all the coal, oil and gas companies which RBS lent money to in 2012 would bring the bank's annual carbon footprint to up to 911 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is 18 times greater than Scotland's total annual emissions and 1.6 times the level of greenhouse gases produced by the entire UK in 2012…
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/rbs-carbon-footprint-up-1-3064169
World Development Movement: Funders
http://www.wdm.org.uk/about-world-development-movement/funders
Totally O/T, but the election is over.
The Coalition won.
@ MemoryVault
August 29, 2013 at 12:06 pm said: "Totally O/T, but the election is over.
The Coalition won"
Are you disappointed?
Hard to be disappointed over a result that was both inevitable, and irrelevant.
Inevitable, despite the Coalition nearly managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, by getting caught flat-footed when the election was announced, and giving KRudd a two week head start.
Irrelevant, because SFA of note is going to change. We'll continue to broke, just a bit more slowly.
Since we are on the subject of psychology and Cook, Margot exhibited a very interesting psychological trait I find very frequently in climate change followers. The very first question they ask is: Did you even read this study?
Why is that interesting? Because the interpretation is: I, climate change follower, am so brilliant and infallible and climate science is so absolutely persuasive that only someone who had not read the study could disagree. This is an interesting combination of narcissism and faith. I truly believe they do not understand at all how anyone could disagree with them if said person had actually read the study. It does not occur to them that the study is wrong, or not persuasive, etc. It HAS to be you did not read it.
This seems most prevalent in followers of climate change, and not skeptics. Presumably, skeptics start out believing people read the study and are here to discuss what was in it. That's not to say skeptics can't sometimes be narrow and sometimes shut out ideas for nonscientific reasons. Rarely, however, do I read skeptics asking "did you read this?" as a first question. (Maybe later on, if the person seems to be talking about something totally different that the study at hand–and then for clarification.)
Different midsets, obviously.
greggcwa
I am a PhD in Theoretical Physics. John Cook is an embarrassment to all well trained scientists who come from Australia. I live in Silicon Valley CA, USA now. The hare-brained global warmers are nothing but a religious cult who seem to have enormous sway with the world's hare-brained politicians (pretty much ALL of them). Obama is a
affirmative action, intellectual fraud.
Don Gaddes
Hoegh-Guldberg had attempted to set himself up as a chief spokesperson for AGW, before the Queensland elections, then promptly pulled his head in when the Conservatives won, and he saw his political/financial props disintegrating. Cook, (of course,) blithely continued with 'Bullshit under Patronage' on Hoegh-Guldberg's behalf, with the help of the SkS pseudo-science'trolls'. Thus,we recognise the real 'puppeteer' in this 'debate'.
I love the wording on this website
http://theconsensusproject.com/
"97% of published climate papers with a position on human caused global warming agree:"
So the papers agree, wow they are some pretty smart papers, what else do they discuss? Sport, Politics? Id be focusing on getting a patent for the new technology of "intelligent paper"….
From my house in Beauty Point TAS I can see the wood chip mill across the Tamar, Im a bit worried now in case all those woodchips suddenly get together and decide to take over the State lol.
I love it also:
The Debate Is Over. There is an overwhelming and growing scientific consensus that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
Well gee. Is there also an overwhelming scientific consensus that milkshakes are yummy?
When did they finally discover that the globe warms (and cools)? Are there REALLY scientists who don't believe that the globe has warmed?
They go on the claim that "97% of published climate papers" state that humans have caused the current global warming. I will not for a second believe that because there is no way known to support such idiocy. The current warming began long before any possibility of ANY human influence, so clearly this is bunkum. I also don't believe they have looked at all published climate papers, so their claims are patently false from that perspective alone.
230 000 wind towers to stop the climate – BUT, only last year China built 53 new coal powered electric plants, plus India is not far behind
Yes indeedy, Dire Dick is such a friendly character. Eli somehow remembers similar claims of ill treatment from Murry Salby.
Junkscience.com drew my attention to a recent paper in the journal Science & Education dealing with the 97%.
Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. … inspection of a claim by Cook et al. … of 97.1 % consensus … shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. …
(my bold)
Sceptical Sam
It seems like UQ has an integrity problem in this regard.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/uq-investigates-study-that-might-never-have-happened/4932648
How good is any of its research?
The only integrity problem UQ has here is the starkly different treatment they've given to the Parkinson's disease fraud compared to Cook's survey stew.
In the Parkinson's disease study UQ seems to have done the right thing as soon as the case was brought to their attention and so urged a retraction of the paper, refunded a private investment that was made based on that paper, and even called in the police to investigate a likely fraud.
If what Mr Tol is saying above is true the consensus they found in relevant physical science was closer to 27% than the 97% claimed.
With Cook's consensus survey there is no response from UQ at all, not even to urge a paper retraction, to say nothing of investigating Lewandowsky and Cook for claiming a consensus from data that didn't support it, especially when this consensus is then used politically (eg by the president of USA) to inhibit the economy of whole nations.
I have also written to UQ's Chancellor Prof Hoj about Cook's fraudulent paper, this was their reply;
"Dear Mr Holmes,
Thank you for your email to Professor Høj. The Vice-Chancellor has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The University has examined the paper by Cook et al. We are satisfied that the paper in question is consistent with responsible research practices.
Professor Anton Middelberg
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International)"