ecomyths

sad, but true

2012-01-25T12:57:00.003-05:00

...just as democracy has not guaranteed rationality in economic policy, it will also be a poor protector of personal liberty. The democratic masses are now sufficiently conditioned to believe that politics and state action are the solution to every problem, and when the crisis intensifies and anxiety levels rise, the majority will happily sign away the remaining bits of individual freedom and property rights in a desperate but entirely counterproductive bid to stem the tide.

The quote above is from the latest in a fine series of posts subsequent to his book on Paper Money Collapse by Detlev Schlichter. In contrast to the current US President, Schlichter appears to have a clear grasp on economics, capitalism and the basis for prosperity.

For example:

On the basis of economic theory and historical experience, the life expectancy of a societal model with 50 percent or more government control over the economy does therefore not look promising. The taxing, resources-consuming state-parasite must constantly weaken and sooner or later kill the productive and wealth-creating market-host. When does this happen? Well, we are about to find out, as we are now all part of some gigantic real-life experiment, bravely conducted by the current policy establishment in Europe and elsewhere at our own expense and that of our children. Across the EU, the share of government spending in the economy is already around 50 percent, depending whose numbers you believe. If we could account for regulation and interventionist legislation, the state’s grip on economic decision-making is certainly larger. To call such an economy capitalist is a joke, albeit perhaps not as cruel a joke as the one the economy itself, with its persistently anaemic performance, is playing on the Keynesian economists and their ridiculous clamour for ever more government spending to boost ‘aggregate demand’.
Anybody with any knowledge of economics should feel uneasy at the sight of a country where half of recorded economic activity is conducted by the state.

Rather than a sense of unease, the mass herd of mainstream media appears to be doing its best effort to rationalize and legitimize the ideology of state control over the economy. Find one example in all of human history where this has been a sustainable success.

When ever the answer is given as "state control over the economy", you know one of two things:

the wrong questions have been asked, or
someone is seeking to exert power and control using the state as their instrument of personal aggrandizement.

Sad but true.

becoming a green hero....

2012-01-25T10:31:00.000-05:00

As a follow up to an improvised chat I had with a student in the coffee line, I want to share a scenario for you to ponder:

You land your spaceship on Earth but know nothing about the planet or its inhabitants, armed only with superior technology (you are after all an inter-galactic space/time traveler) and a well-intentioned desire to assist if possible.
You ask your on-board computer for a print out of the key data on the planet and its peoples: you get data for "countries" listing income per capita; annual death rate, birth rate and infant mortality; life expectancy; some trends for the last 200 years for 200 countries; an index of political freedom; and then some data on pollution levels, which includes per capita levels of "waste" -- being from another planet you have no idea what this last item is, but what the heck, computer lists it, must have some relevance.
Being of superior intellect you ask the computer to run a quick correlation analysis to help you determine what to do and how you can help.
You can see from the data that over 200 years the planet has been steadily improving in all areas, in all countries but some parts still lag and could be classed as "less developed" "under developed" or just in an earlier stage of development -- note, have to learn the language these people use, don't want to offend anyone from the get-go! (Hmmm, wonder if these people still use violence?)
Anyways your data show that prosperity and waste are highly correlated: light-bulb! You can bring more "waste" or even better help the poor places generate greater amounts of waste and, according to your data, their incomes will rise, their life expectancy will increase, infant mortality decrease and malaria disappear -- and you will be a hero.
And as a tiny green alien, you would,of course, be a "green hero".

Now you still don't know cause from effect, but hey, who's perfect anyways?

Part 2: denouement

The pointis not that waste is by definition worthless and useless, it is the conditionsthat create that value that are significant and meaningful.

A weakness of capitalism is it generates waste. A strength is itgenerates prosperity.

So, if weeducate concerned and active young people that waste is bad and should becurtailed, we have just focused on an answer based on flawed presumptions: fearand guilt -- based on an incorrect presumption about limits. We then taketheir energy and enthusiasm and direct them to address waste. Great. Evenif they significantly reduce waste for the wealthiest 1 billion (which has notproven possible), what difference have they made to the lives of the lowest 1billion?

Conversely, if we focus on strengths and hope, we challenge their education toask the right questions as to how do we create prosperity for the lowest 1billion -- implementation of sustainability that is actuallytransformative. Poverty is antithetical to sustainability.

The first construct is stasist and does not significantly alter anything: thesecond is inherently dynamist and does: wealth is a necessary condition forsustainability whereas poverty is what kills people and degrades the planet.

So why does convergent thinking in education stigmatize wealth? Ratherthan inspire or encourage any graduate work on waste, education should beinspiring and facilitating the examination of creative wealth creationcontextualized and "in country" for those places most in need of development and wealthcreation.

If waste management is the presumptive answer, the wrong question is being asked.

it's all politics...

2012-01-22T21:02:00.000-05:00

Most people still assume that resource management and environmental decisions depend upon sound science, rational policy making and human values of progress. In fact, they reflect a fixation on political winds of convenience and contrivance. Too often, the results are an act of "national insanity". The latest example is the delay and apparent "rejection" of the Keystone pipeline by the Obama Administration, which even the mainstream media recognizes as stupid and ideological from a policy perspective, perhaps the worst political mistake of his entire presidency.

It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.
This seems like a truly simple determination. Iran is threatening to blockade the 20 percent of the world’s oil supply that flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The American economy is struggling from high unemployment. The volatility of oil prices, reflected in periodic spikes at the gas pump, is a threat to productivity. A privately funded pipeline project that would create tens of thousands of jobs while helping stabilize America’s energy supply clearly seems to be in the national interest.
The Keystone XL pipeline would have single-handedly carried more energy to the United States than the sum of all the green energy projects funded by the Obama Administration. And it would have done so entirely with private funds rather than the Administrations increasingly ill-fated and ham-handed attempts at venture capitalism with taxpayer funds.

Stupid is, as stupid does. Perhaps this will be the re-election slogan for the Obama Administration.

death of a delusion

2011-12-06T11:17:00.001-05:00

Dateline Durban: the final death throes of the AGW climate delusion.

A week ago, the annual climate change diplomatic cycle convenedhere in Durban. Global interest in COP-17 goings-on can be gaugedby the fact that the media contingent is half what it was inCopenhagen and only 12 heads of state—mostly from Africa—areplanning to drop by. Even the activist contingent seems dispirited.When nobody important is paying much attention and nothingsignificant is likely to be at stake, then, as the Durban draftnegotiations documents show, even diplomats can and will say anysilly thing that they’d like.

Delegates from 190 countries havegathered in this seaside resort town to see if they can salvageanything from nearly 20 years of climate change negotiations. Theprospects are dim. A review of the amalgamof draft negotiating texts [PDF] released this past weekend atthe half-way mark of this 17th Conference of the Parties (COP-17)to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), suggests that few delegates are even trying to pretendthat these negotiations are going anywhere. Some countries aremaking demands for greenhouse gas emissions cuts that are about ascredible as Soviet Five-Year plans.

And of course, without China, nothing is possible and China is not remotely interested in the AGW delusion:

...Xie’s statements at the Durban pressconference on Monday amount to a kind of octopus ink cloud ofdiplo-speak designed to confuse credulous activists and over-eagernegotiators about its real intentions and goals. If it works Chinahopes to escape Durban without being blamed for its "failure." TheChinese have no intention of agreeing to an international treatythat would limit their greenhouse gas emissions any time soon.

Watch the media very closely. Sometime in the next year a brand new eco-catastrophe is going to be discovered. It may be a mutation of AGW hysteria, it might be a modification of green energy fetishism but it most certainly will be the coming of Armageddon. Again.

politics not process

2011-12-06T10:39:00.001-05:00

How far and how systemic is the fraud of green energy? This report on the findings of Ontario's Auditor General offers both insight and depressing clarity:

The Auditor-General leaves little to the imagination in his incisive dissection of the government’s top-down, to-hell-with-economics power trip. Even the Cabinet appears to be an after-thought.
In a pointed note at the beginning of comments on renewables, the AG highlights the wilful neglect that continues to dominate electricity policy. “We did not rely on the Ministry [of Energy]’s internal audit service team to reduce the extent of our audit work because it had not recently conducted any audit on renewable energy initiatives.
No economic analysis or business case had been prepared.
In the belief that politics can defy economics, politicians all over the world are making the big bet that they can overturn the hard rules of supply and demand, the role of prices and the limits of innovation by pushing the right policy buttons.
For a decade to come, Ontario will likely have surplus electricity. Under contracts signed with green-energy producers and others, the government will pay electricity generators billions of dollars to not produce electricity.

Ideology and political manipulation of scientific data are mainstays of ecomyths. A certain absence of transparency also is common. But the green energy fraud has reached new heights in the abuse of due process and concomitant assertion of dogma:

Mr. McGuinty’s green dream has rapidly become an $8-billion nightmare for Ontario taxpayers and electricity users. Almost no new net power will be generated by all the green-energy projects hastily funded since the bill was passed, but the average residential consumer will see more than $400 a year added to his power bill for a decade to pay for all the bad contracts with and subsidies to eco-friendly power suppliers.
...the whole scheme was largely designed by environmentalists and green-industry lobbyists — “stakeholders” in the government’s euphemistic rhetoric.

Ontario recently had an election. The perpetrators of Ontario's green energy commitment were re-elected. On the surface this would suggest a political mandate in support of their ideas and program. This is not the case. Not only did the majority of the electorate not vote for the party that "won" the election, a problem arises from the fact that the use of the franchise is only one check and balance that presumes the government is already in compliance with it's own rules, procedures and processes. As the Auditor's report spells out, in Ontario at least, the government is completely by-passing even its own cabinet, the house and the party to assert the dictatorial fetishes of an inner elite headed by the Premier. This is not democracy, it is eco-fascism alive and assertive.

Update:
Rex Murphy discusses how the situation in Ontario happened. He concludes:

Green is the easiest virtue. All it takes in most cases for politicians is simply to say the word often enough and whatever they propose — for a time — gets a pass.
...that’s where this green obsession leads. It promotes a policy on its moral virtues, not on its real-life impact.
It also has one other feature that politicians are totally unable to resist: Being totally green, they are able, for once, to posture as forward thinking, daring, innovative — even risk-taking — leaders, champions of the Earth, saviours of “the children.” They get to play Superman and Boy Scout at the same time.

And this picture was published showing a windmill bursting into flames as a result of high winds:

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

the inherent contradiction of stasism

2011-12-01T11:22:00.001-05:00

This quote of the day from Samizdata is both accurate and pithy:

"“Green” will never be quite the same after Obama. When Solyndra and its affiliated scandals are at last fully brought into the light of day, we will see the logical reification of Climategate I & II, Al Gore’s hucksterism, and Van Jones’s lunacy. How ironic that the more Obama tried to stop drilling in the West, offshore, and in Alaska, as well as stopping the Canadian pipeline, the more the American private sector kept finding oil and gas despite rather than because of the U.S. government. How further ironic that the one area that Obama felt was unnecessary for, or indeed antithetical to, America’s economic recovery — vast new gas and oil finds — will soon turn out to be America’s greatest boon in the last 20 years. While Obama and Energy Secretary Chu still insist on subsidizing money-losing wind and solar concerns, we are in the midst of a revolution that, within 20 years, will reduce or even end the trade deficit, help pay off the national debt, create millions of new jobs, and turn the Western Hemisphere into the new Persian Gulf. The American petroleum revolution can be delayed by Obama, but it cannot be stopped." Victor Davis Hanson.

Once more we see an example of progress despite stasis intervention and interference from government. How much better off and how much quicker would prosperity extend to all if government was more dynamist and undertook to get with the program, instead of always needing to be the program and/or to curtail the very engine of innovation that drives progress?

At this juncture one of my more engaged and educated students would usually chime in with the perceived central flaw of my question, which is of course the presumption of an inherent contradiction within capitalism. Supposedly, capitalism is incapable of compassion and is inherently doomed to contradict itself into demise and failure. Theory, not practice mind you but a good polemic nevertheless.

Those that hide behind this canard are also those that fail to see the even more glaring inherent contradiction of stasist governance, in practice, namely:

It takes a capitalist country to afford a communist government. For communism’s best results, the country it rules should be free enterprise. Wealth that hasn’t been created cannot be redistributed, no matter how much a government needs it.

Consequently:

All governments are communist. Please, relax. What I mean is that all governments expect to be recompensed, not according to the value of their contributions to society, but according to their needs.

Moreover:

For a government to derive maximum benefit from the communist formula “to each according to his needs,” it’s better for the economy not to be communist. If it is, it might not be able to meet the government’s needs.

Once again, the difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than in theory.

climategate 2.0

2011-11-23T19:52:00.001-05:00

So the timing is either suspect or very carefully planned, but either way the morass that is Climategate was given a new lease of media fame this week with the release of a second round of emails further damaging the reputations of the climatocacy, the Universities of East Anglia and Penn State in particular and those in the media who were so obsequious for so long to the cadre of climate conspirators.

This is not a story that will blow over quickly nor easily. AGW hysteria is already on the wane. Politically, climate is no longer a sexy topic for upwardly mobile politicos. For the public, energy, and especially rising energy costs, has supplanted the nebulous possibility of climate change with an immediate policy concern that has tangible cost and lifestyle implications: windmills are done, dusted and stigmatized; solar has been Solyndra-ized and exposed as a fraudulent waste of taxpayers money, and; the opportunities afforded by shale gas will burn the last bridges of the limits crowd. Globally, poverty and political freedom, not weather, remain the main challenges facing humanity.

Climategate 2.0 will finally elevate the whole sorry debacle out of the confines of the climate wars and into a broader consideration of:

the role of the academy in policy formulation
peer to peer review as a logical alternative to the nepotism and expert politics inherent in the exclusivity of refereed journal peer review
the changes needed for science to regain public trust as an honest broker
the future of environmentalism
creative empowerment in the implementation of sustainability as change

Update:
as might be expected, the plethora of indictment within Climategate2 has eviscerated the remaining shreds of credibility of many climate activists and revealed the personal doubts several had about the public mantra of alarmism and certainty.

Stupidly, some political activists insist on asserting what is now a very disgraced narrative. For this, they are being called into account. This example from Delingpole was too good to bypass:

Have you noticed that whenever our beloved Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne speaks his lips never move, only his butt cheeks? It was the same again on BBC Question Time last night. "But Huhne, this is just arrant nonsense," you kept wanting to scream at the TV. "And either you know it's nonsense in which case you're a liar. Or you don't know it's nonsense, in which case you're more incredibly stupid, more badly informed and more ill-advised than any Minister of the Crown has any decency to be."
Delingpole then goes on to present the much more polite but even more dismissive letter to Huhne from Lords Lawson and Turnbull.

life, liberty and social change

2011-11-17T15:19:00.001-05:00

Ever since my first exposure to the writings of Virgina Postrel, one of my favorite reads is the magazine Reason, not so much in its print version but certainly its on line manifestation. Along with being home to Postrel for a while, Reason also acts (or has acted) as host to insightful posts by John Stossel, Ronald Bailey and Nick Gillespie amongst others.

One of the contributing editors at Reason is Radley Balko, a worthwhile read in his own right and an editor with an astute sense of proportion and justice. Here is Balko in response to an interview published by the Economist (h/t Samiizdata quote of the day)

In theory, libertarians share about half of our positions with the right, and about half with the left. Broadly speaking, we're social liberals and fiscal conservatives. The problem is that once in power, neither side pays much heed to the issues they have in common with libertarians, because that would require them to voluntarily put limits on their own power. And politicians don't generally seek higher office for the purpose of limiting what they can do when they get there. So the libertarian stuff is where they're most willing to compromise. And it's what they're least willing to spend political capital defending.
I think there's reason for some optimism for libertarians. The generations raised on the internet will be more educated, aware, and informed than any before them, and I think that has instilled in them some naturally libertarian instincts, particularly when it comes to issues like government transparency, accountability, censorship, and police power.
George Orwell wrote of government power, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever." He may still be right, but there's now a decent chance someone will be there with a cell-phone camera to post it on YouTube. And exposing abuse of power is half the battle.

One of the staple exam questions in my 3rd year course on sustainability and change, is to ask " what are the prospects for widespread adoption of dynamism?". Balko's remarks give me cause for optimism that the firmament for continued progressive change is intensifying. And, that in an era of globalized information accessibility, empowerment and personal publishing, a libertarian dynamic is in the ascendency. Hopefully so, because there is precious little sign of it within the halls of academia.

Reforming the money system

2011-11-08T10:36:00.001-05:00

Much of the furor over ecomyths gets conflated with -isms: capitalism, corporatism, consumerism, etc. . Environment becomes an emotional sub-set of a larger, ideologically constructed narrative within a stasist prescription necessitating greater levels of increased governance. The most recent incarnation is the Occupy Wall Street event and its affiliated franchises.

Which leads to the central question of fiscal reform and the world's banking industry which is patently no longer suited to the globalized reality of today's economy. So the question that arises is: how to address the failings of the system and the systemic inflation, under-employment and lack of economic sustainability of many nation states?

Here is one voice who seems to know what to do and, more importantly, what not to do.

Matt Ridley on heresy

2011-11-03T12:51:00.000-04:00

Very happy to assist in disseminating this excellent talk by Matt Ridley. One of the most erudite public speakers on environmental issues, Matt is speaking about scientific heresy, which naturally enough leads him to discuss climate.

He states:

let me be quite clear. I am not a “denier”. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

I’ve looked and looked but I cannot find one piece of data – as opposed to a model – that shows either unprecedented change or change is that is anywhere close to causing real harm.
A theory so flexible it can rationalize any outcome is a pseudoscientific theory.
So to say there is a consensus about some global warming is true; to say there is a consensus about dangerous global warming is false.

We are below even the zero-emission path expected by the IPCC in 1990*

Does it matter? Suppose I am right that much of what passes for mainstream climate science is now infested with pseudoscience, buttressed by a bad case of confirmation bias, reliant on wishful thinking, given a free pass by biased reporting and dogmatically intolerant of dissent. So what?

His "so what?" conclusion is that, yes, it does matter a great deal. Stasism relies upon the perpetuation and indoctrination of conformity. Politicization of science is conducted to provide the desire for stasist control of society with a sheen of compelling logic and self interest. The present climate debate is fraudulent in that it less about the integrity of the sconce and more about the manipulation of society for the purposes of elitist social engineering.

is the damage already done?

2011-10-19T15:37:00.000-04:00

So while Donna Laframboise applies the last rites to the credibility of the IPCC, a lingering question remains: is it too late? Has the damage already been done? Is the climate narrative too deeply embedded within the political and social fabric of contemporary society for sanity to prevail?

Perhaps. Matt Ridley offers this excellent discussion on the relative merits of shale gas and windmills as newly acquired sources of energy, their peceived acceptability and media profiles:

To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidized renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it.

Bureaucratic inertia. Check.
Vested interest. Check.

Ecomyths persist long after they are scientifically exposed as fraudulent precisely because they conform to the predominant dogma of the ideology that serves and justifies bureaucratic inertia and vested interests.

Environmentalism is no longer the ideology of reform, of rebellion, of revolution: it is fully co-opted as the dominant dogma of stasist conformity and control.

the IPCC as environmental problem child

2011-10-19T13:34:00.000-04:00

Judith Curry has posted this review of Donna Laframboise's new book on the IPCC The Delinquent Teenager. I have been a bit slow off the mark, and have not completed my reading of the book yet and was going to promote it once that was done, but delaying further seems unnecessary.

If you are a regular reader to this site, you are probably already well aware of Donna's meticulous documentation in a series of posts exposing the fraud of the presumed moral authority of the IPCC. Judith's excellent review clearly confers on Donna's work the very stamp of legitimacy that The Delinquent Teenager strips from the sorry shell of the IPCC edifice.

Are the politics of climate still as polarized and toxic as ever? Or is there a new spirit of reform and cordiality? Reactions to Donna's book will be extremely telling.

the governance problem

2011-09-30T16:41:00.000-04:00

The problem with contemporary governance is twofold:

theory: the perception that the primary purpose of government is to provide, rather than to enable, and
practice: the self-serving, sanctimonious idiots who appear to hold sway and influence within the corridors of power.

I can't decide in this particular case of chicken and egg which needs to be addressed first because clearly, in this case, theory and practice are mutually re-enforcing. (Also see here, here and here.)

Whereas once governance was a balance between policy development and administration, today's entitlement paradigm is a nasty network of insidious insiders moralizing about their self-perceived assertion of values and the imposition of regulations on the "others" who require the direction and social engineering the ruling elite ascribe.

I was not born into the ruing class and a healthy streak of bloody mindedness and self-assertion has successfully removed me from any inclusion in the inner circles of the contemporary green bubble of environmental dogma and indoctrination. Mostly I don't mind but when such foolishness becomes the very lifeblood of authoritarian control and paternalism, I am offended. I am doubly so, when its proponents call it "governance".

So there is an opening. Part Groucho Marx, part V for Vendetta and part Jonathon Swift, we have need of a contemporary leader to rescue us from our malaise, our coma of complacency and the corruption of political values that undermines the ability of the individual to ignore the paucity of good governance presented at the ballot box. Only one thing is truly limited today: leadership.

Postscript:

Of course the most natural answer is education and most consider more education to be essential to achieving change. But not if that education is purposely designed by the state to both oppress and minimize individual liberty in subservience to the state.

See this post on the role of the state in education (none) and this video on why.

the last laugh

2011-09-28T10:29:00.000-04:00

Also from this summer's headlines:

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans
CERN experiment overturns global-warming orthodoxy
Obama praised a taxpayer-backed solar plant that then went bankrupt
Climate Science and Politics: still one-way traffic

Convincing new science. Wow, You would think the mainstream media would be all over this. You would think academia and educators would be all over this. But, apparently, in the new order of environmental dogma, convincing new science is an oxymoron. We are now in the era of pre-conceputal science. Dogma outlines the truth, the way, the path. Science is then those data that confirm the pre-conceived constructs of the dogma and all empirical evidence to the contrary is irrelevant, wrong or just a vast libertarian conspiracy. We are truly lost in paradigm space.

Or we can look at the CERN study and logically assess its meaning for the politically-driven agenda of AGW.

Sustainability, stupidity and progress

2011-09-28T10:00:00.003-04:00

So,where are we? Is today’s politicallandscape resplendent with potential and progressive innovation? Or is it still entrapped in a plethora ofdogma and adrift in a sea of stupidity?

Well let's consider the narrative from the summer months:

The world's economy has fundamentally changed and continues to undergo serious revision. Despite the improvements in human welfare from globalization, the ideology of environmentalism remains entrenched in the dogma of eco-imperialismwhich ignores facts in favor of spouting moral rhetoric about environmental justice and fairness.

This moralism is a guise for ideological money laundering. It is exposed by the fallacy that is green growth, most evident in the energy sector, which continues to force supposed green energy non-solutions. The two most popular currently are windmills and solar panels, which are promoted primarily on moral grounds precisely because their economic justification is untenable.

The answer to our energy needs (cheap energy, especially in developing nations) is, actually, more efficient and effective use of our existing resource base.

Instead, politicians from all over the developed world are on a binge of tax imposition, in the name of environment and in deference to the continued use of the global warming scare, despite its constant refutation and lack of scientific validation.

But why the need to constantly refute and slay the myth of global warming? In part because those truths are systemically obscured and obstructed, ignored as inconvenient by celebrity activists and/or misconstrued, perverted and misrepresented in the junk science that predominates the environmental landscape today.

That dogma is pervasive and affects public policy not only in areas such as energy and development but also into lifestyle regulation and social engineering fear mongering about obesity epidemics, the perils of junk food and the moral failings of the very development that is improving the human condition.

So although we have the capacity to be sustainable, we appear locked into a cycle of political stupidity, promoted and promulgated by an environmental activism that seemingly rejects sustainability as a primary concern for the human condition, for improved human welfare.

Environmentalism remains an ideology of the intellectual elite. Moreover, it is an ideology of the economic and political elite, the ruling classes. They view their intellectual hegemony as "truth", their dogma as "science" and their politics as "justice". Worse still, in their arrogance and conceit, they fail to see where they are stupid and not sustainable.

Sustainability is not stupid, stupid is not sustainable

2011-09-28T09:19:00.000-04:00

Whatmakes something sustainable? What defines sustainability?

Tobe sustainable an activity, action or policy must first satisfy a need, want ordesire. In short, a demand mustexist. The first fallacy ofsustainability is to correlate sustainability with supply: sustainability isnot a function of supply, it is a function of demand – existence of a substancedoes not define its potential as a resource, its utility does. An entity having use, utility and a perceivedworth to users, has a functional value and thus, constitutes a resource forwhich a demand exists. As technology changes, so does our sense of value ofsubstances as to their value as a resource.

So,first condition of sustainability: demand.

Secondly,sustainability is defined by effectiveness. Any activity, action or policy that is ineffective should by definition,be considered as inherently unsustainable. If sustainability is the continued, progressive improvement from a basecondition, any action, activity or policy that is ineffective, that exacerbatesrather than improves the base condition, is therefore antithetical tosustainability, it is inherently unsustainable.

So,a second condition of sustainability: effectiveness.

Thirdly,sustainability is defined by efficiency. Sustainability is the progressive improvement of the human condition. To do more, in more places, more often, formore people is the very essence of efficiency. Sustainability of any activity, action or policy is contingent uponeconomies of scale and context, the efficient delivery of change in a mannerthat make the activity, action or policy valuable to users and a perceivedimprovement in their living condition and situations. Demand moves from quality to quantity as thefree-market rules of economics are applied. Attention and application of efficiencyis the fundamental law of economics which determines which innovations aresustained and life changing and which are fads, passing fancy and whims forwhich no imposition or government fiat can enforce their widespreadadoption. Without efficiency, an idea isjust that: an idea. Efficiency isessential to the successful implementation of any sustainable activity.

Thethird condition of sustainability is efficiency.

Butwhat of ideology? Of defined “greenness”? Of perceived necessity for ecologicalsalvation, world peace and/or sky falling pandemic? None of these elements define sustainability,nor can they pre-empt either of the three essential and inherent conditionsdescribed above.

Activistsmay seek to impose any activity, action or policy in the name of whatevercontemporary ideology is in fashion and in the political ascendancy. Declaring something green, trotting outstudies that indicate the necessity for any prescribed activity, holding massrallies of support and/or corrupting and co-opting whole systems of governancecan not obviate nor hide the essential character of any proposed activity,action or policy. And if the advocatedchange is not sustainable, it is unsustainable and, thus, stupid.

But,wait, can’t something just be neutral? Neither good nor bad?

No. That is the crux of sustainability. There is no steady state, no neutrality. Every activity, action or policy hasimplications, effects and affects that either move societies and individualstowards an improved state or preclude that movement, act to facilitate positivechange or hinder its achievement. Tostand still is to lose ground as change is constant and innovation and thehuman condition must continue to progress alongside those natural changes: anydead fish can float downstream, progress comes from the constant application ofefforts to improve, to develop, to innovate to sustain the humancondition.

Sustainabilityis human progress defined by demand, effectiveness and efficiency. Nothing is sustainable that does not satisfythese three conditions.

Moreover,if one accepts that improving the human condition is the most important andvaluable activity, action or policy one can engage in, any change thatprecludes, hinders or otherwise slows the implementation of sustainabilitythrough a lack of demand, ineffectiveness and/or inefficiency, is stupid.

So,where are we? Is today’s politicallandscape resplendent with potential and progressive innovation? Or is it still entrapped in a plethora ofdogma and adrift in a sea of stupidity?

Smart vs. stupid

2011-09-28T08:48:00.000-04:00

Smartis not just knowing what you know, it is also knowing what you don't know.

Stupid is when you either don't recognize what you don't know or you refuse toacknowledge that there are things you don't know.

When people make mistakes and errors in judgment, this is usually the problem, not basic intelligence but a refusal or inabilityto acknowledge what one does and does not know.

The world is full of officials who confuse education with learning, think theyare smarter than they are, lack creativity and instead go around trying toregulate and control people whose talent and creativity both frightens andintimidates them. Nothing scares a bureaucrat more than a free thinkingcreative spirit who does not conform to the rules the bureaucrat imposes tobring everyone down to their level of comprehension.

What people do not understand scares them: first they seek to control it, andwhat they can not control, they then set about destroying. Fear is an mucheasier emotion to use politically to control people than trust: which is why somany people of limited capacity gravitate to government and administration --they seek to impose power on others to make up for their own creativeinadequacies.

peer-reviewed? not

2011-04-18T10:30:00.000-04:00

The last line of defense regarding the AGW mantra for any advocate of human induced climate alarmism is always the 2007 IPCC report. Not only is it consistently cited as the definitive perspective on climate, it is robustly defended as being the consensus of over 2,500 scientists and the best of science because it is peer-reviewed. Inferred in that defense is that the IPCC is to be trusted as the authority because it is so unlike all those pesky blogs that have ripped holes in the IPCC science, the consensus and the combination of inaccuracies, mistakes and ideological contrivance that is the IPCC report.

Unfortunately for AGW advocates the credibility of the IPCC process and its report suffered in the wake of Climategate, Himalyagate, Amazongate and the rest, the collapse at Copenhagen and the general ignoring of Cancun. Despite this, many have persisted with the peer-reviewed, best science narrative as their rationale for retaining both their belief in AGW and their assertion that the IPCC should be trusted.

Over at her blog, Donna Laframboise has slowly but methodically been scrutinizing the both IPCC and its report, first ripping apart its claims of wide consensus and participation, and now, its claims to peer-review gold standard excellence. Seems fully 30% of the citations contained within the 2007 IPCC report do not originate from peer-reviewed sources.

So, to re-cap. Not only do we know that the IPCC process contrived to exclude data and papers that contradicted its dogma, we now have evidence that 30% of those sources that were used were non peer-reviewed.

Trust: not so much.

Authoritative: hardly.

Driven by ideology: definitely.

We only get answers to the questions we ask. The IPCC was never mandated to ask the right questions. Still isn't.

why climategate won't go away

2011-04-11T11:51:00.001-04:00

The mainstream reaction to Climategate within both the climate orthodoxy and within academia more generally, has been to hang tough and downplay its significance.

The preferred narrative is still to portray Climategate as a theft of emails, an illegal hack of irrelevant personal "boys will be boys" jocularity and mischievousness: oh, those naughty climate guys. In best British tucker it is sometimes OK to admonish the lead climateocracy mafia with a simple "awfully bad form old chap" and the US equivalent has been to rally a well orchestrated and funded round of media spin and redemptive pap.

Academics largely don't sully themselves with such mundane politics and, thus, the prevalent institutional and individual response within academia has been to hunker down, keep the peer review, graduate studies and grant treadmill ticking over and wait for the winds of outrage to blow themselves out.

Well, despite these best attempts at ostrich personification by the academy, Climategate simply refuses to go away.

First, James Delingpole's various postings and characterisations of CRU and Phil Jones in particular were validated by the British Press Council. Showing it had learnt nothing from the Climategate debacle, the University of East Anglia had objected to Delingpole's language and characterisation of Jones as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.

You would think the lessons would have been learned by now. But no. The Team and their respective institutions continue to obfuscate and drag their heels rather than simply comply with FOI requests and the requirements for data disclosure. Which only makes their continued reluctance more damning when further evidence of the real reasons behind the Climategate leaks slowly become more apparent as they have with this post over at Climate Audit, nicely summarized for the non-technical by the Bishop.

Climategate now appears to be a deliberate leak to point out the true nature of the data manipulation and selectivity driving the hockey stick and the perpetuation of the myth of contemporary climate change being unprecedented.

The silence from other climate scientists is deafening. In particular, other reputable climate scientists need to step up:

condemn the actions of the Team revealed by Climategate
not defend those actions as irrelevant
not dismiss the Hockey Stick as unimportant to the AGW narrative, and
accept that we do not have enough definitive knowledge to either verify the original IPCC premise of CO2 driven AGW, nor to sustain its pre-emptive focus within climate study

Climate changes. The time has come to remove climate science from the political spin of the IPCC and re-insert it back into the realms of scientific enquiry and discovery free of public policy obligations and political agendas. Moreover, the time has come to recognize that climate change was used as a contrivance to hijack and define the central narrative for environmental politics.

Update: time enough to add another excellent cartoon from Josh

the winds of change

2011-04-06T15:35:00.001-04:00

Change in axiomatic constructs always is slow but it is both insistent and inevitable once reasonable people beginning questioning assumptions and examining, causality rather than merely accepting ideological assertions. Today, I want to highlight two examples of the extent to which orthodoxy and dogma are no longer being automatically accepted as axiomatic.

The first is the latest in a series of studies that examine the actual performance of windmills as a power source. The significance of this latest study is that it was commissioned by an environmentalist organization predisposed ideologically towards the promotion of wind as a power source. The study finds that wind power is not only unreliable, but actual generation of power occurs less than 20% of the time in over half the installations and power generation is less than 10% pf capacity in over 30% of cases. Simply put, wind power is not only massively inefficient, it also is massively ineffective: current wind power technology will never be anything but a small sporadic supplemental power source.

The second example is a wonderful summary of the latest research on the potential (apparent?) influence of solar variation on climate change. The presentation is available as a YouTube video and is an excellent example of how science will eventually act to right itself. The IPCC models and mantra are dismissive of solar as a forcing mechanism within climate change, partly from a lack of understanding and appreciation, but mostly from an ideological commitment to the exclusive promotion of CO2 as the sole driver of climate change. Coutillot's presentation is informative and summarizes much of the latest research. However, it also alludes to the ongoing difficulty still facing scientists who work outside the parameters of the IPCC agenda.

People of integrity expect to be believed. And when they are not, they let time prove them right.

good reads from down under

2011-04-04T20:26:00.002-04:00

In the wake of the floods this Spring and the continued uncertainty over the Federal government, the issue of climate change continues to be more central within Australian politics than to other jurisdictions where it has quietly slid on to the back burner (and beyond in some instances). In a policy climate that continues to be volatile, it is gratifying that this week two postings emerged that illustrate a balanced and credible delineation of the issues.

The first is a post on Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog by Neville Nicholls which discusses the causes of the recent extreme rainfall in E. Australia. He concludes that the cause was the record La Nina event, but, no, that event is not related to AGW, nor was it driven by human induced climate change. Moreover, to conflate the true cause, the extreme ENSO, with AGW-related aspects of global warming, is not scientifically credible.

The second was over at Judith Curry's blog and was an essay by Don Aitkin on the current state of the climate debate. Aitken offers a wonderfully balanced summation of the contrasting perspectives of both the supporters of the AGW orthodoxy and its dissenters, offering a description of the myriad a variants inhabiting both broad perspectives. Along the way, he offers an accurate asse4ssment of why the climate debate has faded from both public and political centrality over the past 2 yrs. and the challenges that the invigorated blogosphere discussion of climate presents to another orthodoxy, that of academic peer review.

Too often discussion and perspective are subsumed within a morass of confirmation bias, ideology and self-interest. These two posts illustrate that intellectual discussion does not have to be that way.

embedding myths

2011-03-15T14:58:00.000-04:00

It has long been a contention of mine that ecomyths are embedded into public consciousness by ideologues, who are often well intentioned but usually are intellectual elites seeking to impose on the world their notion of what is correct, required and necessary for others. They are stasists in thought and method and the very antithesis of the dynamism necessary for the implementation of sustainability.

Of course, such elites merely espouse sustainability as a construct: they have no real allegiance nor commitment to human sustainability, freedom or development. No, ecomyths exist primarily as a tool for their own exercise of control, the desire to exert power of the direction and characteristic of the life others should lead.

Two examples today of how:

ecomyths become embedded in the public domain
elites use a selective interpretation of science as an apparent imperative to justify their ideology and,
the politics of eco-activism, governance and intellectual elitism, are mutually reinforcing elements that drive stasism.

The first example describes the mis-use and abuse of science by eco-activists in a demarketing campaign designed to stigmatize fish farming, embedding in the process the well-worn ecomyths of toxic pollution, health risks and the anti-environment narrative of commerce and technological advancement (even when that progress provides employment, food and health benefits).

The second is the latest in a series of articles debunking the myth of obesity. It suggests that

obesity crusaders remain unaware that there is an absence of scientific evidence to support their assertions

and

the success of the obesity crusade rests not on the truth of its science, but on the way in which the obesity entrepreneurs use that science to change policy.

The policy fields vary tremendously but the defining characteristics do not:

a self-appointed and self-serving coterie of aspiring officials, bureaucrats, politicians and activists
funding an ambitious cadre of scientists
a compliant and non-intrusive media
a phalanx of celebrity enablers, and
a mutual distaste for, and disregard of the masses, their thoughts and values and livelihood.

There is no large scale conspiracy here. Just the latest manifestation of the centuries old imposition of elite ideology on the rest of society. The only difference is that the tools are now the very implements and features of enlightenment that were meant to remove the imposition of oppression: information, science, media, literacy, democracy.

There is, however, one crucial difference between today and previous generations: the masses are neither ignorant nor compliant. As with climate, the continued mis-use and abuse of science will only serve to remove the trust the masses place in those elites who hide behind ecomyths to justify their policies. Politicians are right to be wary of the Tea Party and its local variants. Academics are wise to be wary of blogs and peer to peer accountability. Freedom is indeed scary to those who wish to impose power over people rather than empower them.

caught with the hand in the cookie jar...

2011-03-09T11:40:00.003-05:00

There are those who still contend that Climategate was (a) a theft (b) much ado about nothing and (c) confirmed as such by the "independent inquiries" that have "exonerated" the leading protagonists of the climatocracy revealed by the emails to have fatally corrupted the IPCC process in subservience to the interests of the CRU/Team. Some are trolls who pop up on blogs, repeat their mantra, throw in a snide ad hominem remark and then retreat back to their morally superior perches of privilege and ignorance. Still worse are those in the larger academy who ignore the whole affair in the hopes that no one will see that the behaviours and actions of the climate coterie are not that unusual within the venal corridors of higher education. Indeed, as long as those activities bring substantial amounts of funding and prestige, they are both officially sanctioned and praised by administrators who view the academy as them and professors as mere minions to serve at the administrators' directive.

Feigned ignorance just got more difficult. Denial of inquiry whitewashing and soft-pedalling just got more difficult. Defence of the Team and its actions just got more difficult. Academic endorsement by subtle, tacit acceptance of the necessity of the Team's actions just got more difficult.

Just as Climategate confirmed much of what skeptics had alleged and criticised about the IPCC process, the antics of CRU and the bully, expertise politics of the climatocracy, so there are now revelations and confirmation that indeed, emails were deleted by request, truth was obscured and that the inquiries established to root out these issues, did not do this job.

Simply put: the game is up and sooner or later it will get very messy and legal.

Any academic now has a final chance to demonstrate and rescue their intellectual and personal integrity. To continue to ignore, excuse and otherwise endorse the actions of the Team in the development and promotion of the Hockey Stick meme is to lose any pretense of objectivity and self-respect.

Cartoons by Josh.

theory vs. practice redux

2011-03-02T10:53:00.002-05:00

Theory is interesting. It starts with someone's ideas, intuition or ideology. It builds momentum using selective data until the point it becomes an accepted, axiomatic construct, the mainstream narrative. It can only be challenged by a counter explanation, but the counter explanation requires far more evidenciary traction and explanation than the original hunch, guess or bias because that prevailing theory has now become the dogma with which people have emotional investment.

Let's deviate away from the strict ecomyth to illustrate this dynamic and use instead the housing and financial mess in the US as an exemplar. Most know of the situation but rely on either the mainstream media or their selected on-line sources for their understanding of the actual circumstances and explanatory constructs: why let facts interfere with confirmation bias? Moreover, in this like many other situations, our actual knowledge tends to be indirect and subject to ideological interpretation. Despite this, there is a dominant narrative, a theory that has gained acceptance as the "correct" explanation for what happened.

But what if these are not in a strict sense, fully accurate? Truthful, but only in the details, not the intent and not so far as the origins of the crisis? We only get the facts we ask for.

Here is an alternative explanation that does look to cause.

And, here is an actual example of the dynamic in play with its results.

If nothing else, Obama will leave the US presidency with at least one clear legacy: crony capitalism as the new community.

The art in politics, as always, is selling the people on the narrative of what you claim to be doing and not on its substantive details.

The art of the myth.

The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory...

2011-02-28T14:05:00.000-05:00

The title for this post comes from a reply to a comment in response to this post by Willis Eschenbach.

As with many people I am familiar with in the blogosphere, I have never met Willis in person. Indeed, I know of him only through his posts at Climate Audit, at WUWT and at Climate Etc.. He has always impressed me with his insight, his candor and his constructive ideas. In short, Willis thinks rather than merely reciting from dogma. Thus, I was very intrigued to get his back story and impressed that he took the time to reply to all the anonymous and sometimes very personal attacks at him personally as a result of his sharing his ideas.

Shaw once said that youth was wasted on the young. I think if he was alive today, he might be tempted to say that education is wasted on academics. An educated mind should be an open mind. It is one of life's most perplexing paradoxes for me that so many academics are closed minded.

Willis puts many in the discussion of climate and environmental change to shame. The dialogue would indeed be that much more engaging and productive if all involved were as sanguine. Having letters after your name does not make you smart, informed nor enlightened. It should, however, confer a requirement for open mindeness and intellectual curiosity. Sadly, it does not.

The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory...

political change

2011-02-22T09:53:00.002-05:00

Change is inherently messy. Thus, as much as some long to exert control over change, fearing that mess and loss of control as an inherent vice, change has a tendency to happen regardless. Instead of fearing change as a vice, it is possible to view all change as opportunity to be embraced as the defining characteristic and purpose of human existence: we exist to change, to grow to become....Ah, but there is the rub: to become what? It is the very uncertainty that unnerves people, especially the ruling class who view their own roles as leaders as a divine right but scorn the capability of the regular citizen to take a shift, to embrace and act morally and in good fashion.

Nowhere is this narrative of change more profound or entrenched than in politics. Ruling elites have always sought to justify their oppression as a necessary indulgence for their essential role in firstly defining civilization (in their image, of course) and secondly, defining its maintainence (at the cost of others lives, of course). The others ae minimized and demonized as a leaderless rabble without morality and any measure of that ultimate virtue, control.

Throughout human history, every empire has crumbled, every dictator has eventually fallen. It has taken a long while, but finally literacy has empowered a greater majority of the world's inhabitants. Moreover, elite regimes are no longer able to control all of the media, all of the information and all of the education.

Not to say that we, as people will not make mistakes. Mistakes are a valuable learning tool. Change is messy. It is imperfect, it is not controllable. Moreover, change is not something we should seek to control: it should be something we seek to constantly create, adapt and share. Utopian maybe, but not an elitist utopia, a democratic one.

Here is Brendan O'Neill's excellent commentary on the Libyan situation (and those in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain....).

The change indeed is going to come.

changing education paradigms

2011-02-21T18:15:00.001-05:00

I blog to express my ideas around central concepts and constructs influencing the sustainability of the world. A bit pretentious, but small goals lead to small results, so why no embrace really big, worthwhile goals like a better planet for future generations?

I write myself and I link to posts and other comments that stimulate and arouse my curiosity, inform my world and inform me. Occasionally, I just want to link to something that requires no additional comment, but just a whole lot of reflective consideration. Today's post is one of those. Watch, consider and implement improved praxis:

I constantly seek to improve my own teaching praxis, which is encapsulated within this presentation.

the spencer challenge

2011-02-03T14:10:00.003-05:00

Sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow. With this post I am happy to follow the lead of WUWT and post the link to Roy Spencer's challenge that cuts right to the heart of the climate question:

I’ve been picking up a lot of chatter in the last few days about the ’settled science’ of global warming. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is manmade. It in no way “proves” it.
If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability.
The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.

The challenge has provoked some interesting responses. Many have objected to the reversal of the normal null hypothesis of scientific inquiry and many have simply retorted, kindergarten style, well show us how natural change precludes the effect of CO2.

I suspect that is the real purpose of Roy's challenge: to point out that AGW is not falsifiable but, instead is a presumed, axiomatic construct without refutable scientific basis. Doesn't in itself mean it's wrong, just not a scientific imperative for global reorganization of the economy, society and the rules of scientific inquiry.

Science is a means to measure and understand things. What those measurements mean and what we do with that understanding, are societal
determinations: the social and political processes of decision making and not hard science. Science, both good and bad, is but one input into societal decisions: it is not the sole determinant of those decisions.

What most activist scientists fail to realize is that politics is an exercise in power, not truth. The truth of the science is irrelevant. Climate science, like any science of the environment, is merely a convenient contrivance for the promotion and imposition of a particular ideological dogma. Science that promotes the advocacy of the dogma is favored, the science that challenges the dogma, marginalized.

But within democratic society, political power is exercised by the acceptance of the dominant narrative: if the mainstream, voting public sways in the belief, their trust in the dogma, then it loses its political traction, becomes a liability and the political imperative switches to an alternative narrative, with amended framing.

Because of its excessive use of authority and its presumptive use of the science, the climate dogma has spectacularly imploded as the narrative runs counter to so much of observed personal experience. It has simply ceased to be useful as a presumptive political imperative, hence the desperate shift to recast the climate narrative as "climate disruption".

Trouble is, this time the exposition has been too fundamental for the narrative to be simply re-cast. The very assertive power of ideological environmentalism as a political imperative is now being questioned and rejected by many, perhaps even the majority.

the ends should never justify the means

2011-01-30T03:35:00.003-05:00

In her comments on a recent workshop in Lisbon, Judy Curry notes that:

"Climate scientists seem frustrated by an apparent inability to communicate effectively to the public. They seem to think that knowledge speaks to power: if we communicated better, people would do what is needed."

Does anyone else get a sense of irony from the fact that so many involved in climate science are either (a) educators or (b) government employees? Both constituent groups would appear to have as a prerequisite good communication skills. Is it then the skill that is lacking, or the will?

Is the explanation indeed in the latter part of the quote, the presumption that knowledge is power and that the science when applied to climate is less about the understanding of fundamental truth for enlightenment and more about the imposition of power to direct behavior towards a presumptive end?

I will suggest further that the understanding of science, post-normal science and the politicization of science as exemplified by environmentalism (including climate) is enhanced by an appreciation of the ideology guiding the politics that direct the science through its funding.

Reduced to a simple sound bite: the political interest in climate is a contrivance, an excuse to mandate presumptive political controls. The science is used selectively when it supports the political agenda of economic intervention by government and behavior modification consistent with the mantra of the environmental ideology seemingly made imperative by the selective science employed. There is no pervasive interest in "truth", only in the science that provides the convenient answers: the control over funding and the predominance of the IPCC process, are the tools through which the conduct of science is thus "guided". Self interest and wise career management tend to further correct the system, which is further reinforced by the normal processes of academia. For example, personalities are enveloped into the system, as we do not do a good job of differentiating ideas from individuals. This has the effect of furthering tribalism as individuals perceive themselves to be under attack whenever the ideas they have been promoting are queried, scrutinized or "attacked".

Thus, rather than extend a discussion about the relative merits of scientific method and PNS, I would suggest that all recognize the influence that both politics and ideological goals have on both the conduct of science, the framing of the questions asked of the science and the manner with which the findings of science are then communicated and received by different audiences. The corollary is that those who engage in the debate on climate do so for a wide range of reasons: some as "pure" scientists seeking just the "truth", some as scientists seeking a particular truth, some as political activists seeking to use either sets of knowledge as an appropriate contrivance to some ends and others simply because it is the highest profile (best funded) are of research open to them: no labels, that only serves to obscure the variety of motives and activities that do exist.

My point is that we can either continue to identify when, where and why people agree on our understanding of the science; or we can continue to differentiate what our preferred adaptive strategies are and when, why and how they differ. To continue to conflate the two, is to continue to confuse the primacy of the science with the exigency of the politics. To my mind, reconciliation of the science (the means) is not possible without first neutralizing the politics (the ends). At present, too much of the discussion of climate is characterized by the political ends justifying the scientific means.

Reflection:
much of the above commentary stems from my own reflection on this wonderful post by Ben over at Climate resistance. He states:

The mistake Nurse makes in his treatment of the climate debate is to imagine that it is divided over a simple claim that ‘climate change is happening’. It is this polarisation of the debate into simple categories — scientists verses deniers — which obscures the real substance of debate, its context, and its nuances. The reality is that climate change is a matter of degree, not a matter of true versus false. From this question of degree emerge points of disagreement about the likely material consequences of warming, each of which are also questions of degree. And from these consequences emerge debates about how these Nth-order effects of Nth-order effects of global warming are likely to cause problems for humans. There are then yet further debates about how best to respond effectively.

Nurse might argue that this reorganisation of political life around environmental issues comes with the blessing of scientific authority, and that it is science which identified the need to adjust our lifestyles and economy. But the greening of domestic and international politics preceded any science. The concept of ‘sustainability’ was an established part of the international agenda long before the IPCC produced an ‘unequivocal’ consensus on climate; the IPCC was established to create a consensus for political ends. Nurse, nearly recognising science’s role in the legitimisation of such political ecology, worries about loss of trust. If scientists are not ‘open about everything they do’, he says, ‘then the conversation will be dominated by people driven by politics and ideology’. But it is already ‘driven by politics and ideology’... it’s simply that Nurse does not recognise environmentalism as political or ideological, and he does not notice himself reproducing environmental politics and ideology. The loss of trust he now observes is not the consequence of politics and ideology, but the all too visible attempt to hide it behind science and highly emotive images of catastrophe.

resources are not, they become

2011-01-19T14:37:00.004-05:00

I have been asked by a reader to expand upon the construct that resources are not, they become. This is the base construct for all resources management and environmental policy, including sustainability, yet it remains poorly understood by many.

The environment exists and is neutral stuff until it is transformed by human use into a resource. This is a utilitarian definition of a resource and the corollary is that we manage resources, i.e. human use of the environment, not the environment per se. The act of management itself is for human purposes, it is management of resources and especially, human use of those resources. We might engineer the environment, but we manage people.

A resource is defined by four conditions:

it is known
a demand exists for it
it is spatially delineated, and
its development and production are economically viable.

All four of these conditions change with technology. As technology advances, so does our conception and definition of the resource base. Resources are not, they become. And because their definiton changes with technology several important associated concepts can also be derived:

Limits do not exist. Long before we run out of any resource, technology will have supplanted that resource with something better, cheaper, more effective, more efficient. Resources become obsolete, they do not become extinct.
Intergenerational equity is a fallacy. Because the rate of change of technology advances so rapidly (and the contemporary rate of change ever more rapidly than that of the past), we simply do not know what future generations will want or need as their resource base.
Most appeals for conservation are unwarranted. Because there are no permanent resource scarcities, no resource limits and no intergenerational equity, all most conservation efforts do is deprive existing populations from the advantages that exist of contemporary use of the resource base.
Much of sustainability is predicated upon the wrong questions. The defining construct of sustainability is change, and our adaptation to the changing dynamics of the future, not the preservation of existing conditions. Because this perspective is missed, sustainability is incorrectly framed from a stasist perspective of command and control, fear of limits and inequality, and the wrong questions are advocated as the defining characteristic for future policy. For example, climate change has begun to morph into a wider concern for alternative energy and a call for de-carbonisation of energy production. Yet, the central element of the most productive era of development and growth if the human condition in the past 200 years has been the provision of cheap, accessible power. Ergo, our guiding premise ought to be: "how do we develop more cheap power in more places in a decentralized, non-polluting manner?" The answer to that question beyond our lifetime, is not simply one of changing fuels, generating electricity with windmills or solar, replacing oil with propane or hydrogen, electric cars or hybrids. Does anyone seriously think we will be driving a Prius or any variant on one in 2111? No, what is needed is alternative means to produce energy: alternatives to mass produced, centralized electricity; alternatives to electricity, alternatives to the internal combustion engine, to the steam turbine. An alternative energy, not just an alternative fuel.

Especially on my last point, too often this perspective is dismissed in a cursory manner as too idealistic, as naive, as unrealistic. (Meanwhile those same critics are quite willing to completely destroy contemporary globalization and development in the name of prospective climate change in that same 100 year window).

Look back to 1811. The world traveled by horse and buggy, by sail and was powered largely by water mill and coal. The full advent of steam power and the transformation of ocean travel and the development of the railways had yet to occur. Move on to 1911 and the advent of the internal combustion engine and the steam turbine, and the long-range transmission of electricity are about to underscore another full scale transformation leading to jet propulsion and nuclear power.

Technology has not slowed, it has continued to advance, become cheaper, smaller, more effective, more efficient and finally, more equitable under contemporary globalization. What will power the world in 100 years is unlikely to be oil, but just as with coal, we will not have run out of the stuff, just supplanted it with something more useful, more resourceful.

Not understanding the primary role of technology and, more significantly, technological change, is one of the central reason people continue to subscribe to stasist constructions of resource management and environmental policy. Ecomyths persist as a natural consequence of this belief. In turn, ecomyths are then used to promote the dogma of resource limits and the necessity for increased governance. Fear instills the need for stasist controls and limts.

Recognition of the full implications of the construct "resources are not, they become" enables the mind to envisage the true potential for technological transformation of resources, the absence of limits and the empowerment of all to determine their future prosperity. It is a future that builds upon hope and a belief in the capacity for people to not only want to improve but to act on that desire through the constant innovation and creation of new technology.

Sustainability is not the suppression of change:

Sustainability is the capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose. (Fullan)

Sustainability is change.

eviseration by Eschenbach

2011-01-15T11:15:00.002-05:00

It is possible that someone might look first to this blog and has not yet seen this guest post by Willis Eschenbach over at WUWT. For that reason alone it is worth summarizing his key points. And for those who have read his post, add mine to the list of those other blogs who should take the opportunity to both praise and highlight his excellent evisceration of some of the most pernicious AGW, IPCC myths.

These myths are promulgated by the type of expertise politics exposed by the Climategate emails -- the arrogance, bullying and self-serving politics that hides behind an academic sheen but is ultimately as self-serving as any other bureaucratic, stasist politics of control. The tactics are the same. The language and the derisiveness, the same.

What we do not learn from history, we are condemned to repeat. Science is not politics and when people assert their science as politics, they cannot select which rules and criteria should apply to their assertions and hide behind their academic pretensions for their bad politics.

But enough of the rant. Eschenbach's excellent evisceration:

This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?

Which is an interesting hypothesis, but it is woefully short of either theoretical or observational support. In part, of course, this is because the AGW hypothesis provides almost nothing in the way of a statement or a prediction which can be falsified. This difficulty in falsification of the hypothesis, while perhaps attractive to the proponents of the hypothesis, inevitably implies a corresponding difficulty in verification or support of the hypothesis.

In addition, a number of arguably cogent and certainly feasible scientific objections have been raised against various parts of the hypothesis, from the nature and sign of the forcings considered and unconsidered, to the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms.

Finally, to that we have to add the general failure of what few predictions have come from the teraflops of model churning in support of the AGW hypothesis.

So to date, the evidentiary scorecard looks real bad for the AGW hypothesis. Might change tomorrow, I’m not saying the game’s over, that’s AGW nonsense that I’ll leave to Dr. T. I’m just saying that after a quarter century of having unlimited funding and teraflops of computer horsepower and hundreds of thousands of hours of grad students’ and scientists’ time and the full-throated support of the media and university departments dedicated to establishing the hypothesis, AGW supporters have not yet come up with much observational evidence to show for the time and money invested.

So what to do? Eschenbach offers the following shortlist of rules for the reigning Climatocracy:

Show that some aspect of the climate is historically anomalous or unusual
Show that the anomaly can be explained by human actions
Defend your work
Show your work
Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled
Don’t try to change the rules of the game in mid-stream
Stop calling people “deniers”
Stop avoiding public discussion and debate of your work
Write scientific papers that don’t center around words like “possibly”
Stop lauding the pathetic purveyors of failed prophecies
Enough with the scary scenarios, already
Speak out against scientific malfeasance whenever and wherever you see it. This is critical to the restoration of trust
Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends
STOP HIDING THINGS!!!
Admit the true uncertainties
Scrap the IPCC

I would argue that the only people who will find discomfort or disagreement with this list of game rules are those who worship at the alter of expertise and elitism, and not the primacy of democracy. These rules do not dispute nor diminish the substantiation of scientific evidence, only the political assertion of gut instinct, ideology and personal opinion as scientific facts.

Follow up:
just as I was commenting on Eschenbach, Lindzen posted his latest exposition of the failings of AGW alarmism, excellently placed in context by this commentary on QandO.
More to come...

language, narrative and use of the pejoritve

2011-01-12T14:03:00.002-05:00

One of the fascinating features of on-line discussion is the propensity for advocates of differing perspectives to talk past one another while contemplating ideas and their meanings. A key feature of this dialogue is the use of the pejorative to define, describe and dismiss the contrary perspective and thus frame the narrative in a manner that best serves the forthright assertion of the perspective being advocated. In short, language is used not to illuminate differences and nuance, but, rather, to restrict and confine consideration of variations of meaning: dialogue has as its purpose the constriction of discussion, that obviates values and asserts prevailing dogma, rather than a means to examine, explore and parse meanings, intent and consequences.

This restriction is most evident when issues of presumed scientific character, such as ecomyths, are discussed by scientists who must perforce consider the politics that interplay with their preferred science only framing of the problem and its potential remedy. In particular, political perspectives tend to be understood in terms characterized by the media and largely reduced to caricature in the process. Thus, political perspectives. values and ideas are subject to considerable confusion and diminution, especially when the media caricature is used to define the pejoritive characterization that serves as its dismissal by those of a differing suasion.

Samizdata recently posted this quote of the day:

I know, my friends, that you are concerned about corporate power. So am I. So are many of my free-market economist colleagues. We simply believe, and we think history is on our side, that the best check against corporate power is the competitve marketplace and the power of the consumer dollar (framed, of course, by legal prohibitions on force and fraud). Competition plays mean, nasty corporations off against each other in a contest to serve us. Yes, they still have power, but its negative effects are lessened. It is when corporations can use the state to rig the rules in their favor that the negative effects of their power become magnified, precisely because it has the force of the state behind it. The current mess shows this as well as anything ever has, once you realize just what a large role the state played. If you really want to reduce the power of corporations, don't give them access to the state by expanding the state's regulatory powers.
It doesn't matter which party is captaining the ship: regulations come with unintended consequences and will always tend to be captured by the private interests with the most at stake. And history is full of cases where those with a moral or ideological agenda find themselves in political fellowship with those whose material interests are on the line, even if the two groups are usually on opposite sides.

What differentiates dynamism from stasism, is the desire for state control versus the preservation of individual freedom. There are only two basic perspectives in politics, as the quote from Heinlein used on this blog summarizes:

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Perhaps the construct most subject to selective, pejorative interpretation and definition is capitalism. Peter Foster provides this succinct discussion on capitalism, its essential characteristics and its selective mis-interpretation by stasists:

Kremlinism, statism, and cronyism are all in fact negations of capitalism, which is a system based on private property and the rule of law. Government is needed to protect the system, but that does not mean that it is compatible with anything that government chooses to do.
Unless people understand what rightly defined capitalism is — as opposed to the demonic parody of greed and exploitation crafted by Marx and more recently gussied up with accusations of environmental fecklessness — it becomes impossible to defend or promote.
Many people understandably fail to grasp that capitalism is not necessarily what is either practised or preached by capitalists. Capitalism is an ideal, but unlike the socialism of state control it is an attainable, and moral, one. A system in which private business must co-operate with authoritarian government is called fascism. Historically, fascism and Communism were both rooted in hatred of capitalism. “Kremlin capitalism” is an Orwellian contradiction.

There are few true polymaths: people with extended expertise and genius in multiple fields. On-line discussions provide a forum wherein people can (often anonymously) indulge in their pretensions of intellectual omnipotence, cast aspersions on the values of others and. most conspicuously, frame the narrative in a manner that is self-serving to their own pretensions, ideology and prejudices.

Are we seeking first to understand others, and then to be understood ourselves:? Or are we seeking a venue to assert of own sense of "the truth"? The former sees education as a process of self-actualization, discussion and personal growth. The latter sees education as being synonymous with training people through an elitist indoctrination of approved dogma.

It has been my experience that it is easy to distinguish the two: one is civil, ridden with self-deprecation and humour. The other is loud, brassy and boorish. One is respectful and complementary in its consideration of alternate perspectives: the other is abusive, insulting and disparaging.

People of integrity expect to be believed, and when they are not, they let time prove them right.

and tomorrow is a brand new day

2011-01-04T16:36:00.002-05:00

Whereas yesterday was for reflecting on the year past, today is for considering the optimism of the New Year -- or not.

Over at Spiked, the always excellent Brendan O'Neill has these thoughts:

You couldn’t have asked for a better snapshot of the chasm that divides today’s so-called expert classes from the mass of humanity than the snow crisis of Christmas 2010. They warn us endlessly about the warming of our planet; we struggle through knee-deep snow to visit loved ones.

...the snow crisis demonstrated, in high definition, the gap between the fear-fuelled thinking of the elite and the struggles of everyday people. It illuminated the million metaphorical miles that now separate the fantasy politics of our so-called betters from the concerns of the rest of us.

What it really shows is the extent to which the politics of global warming is driven by an already existing culture of fear.

This reveals the stinging snobbery at the heart of the politics of global warming. Because what we have here is an updated version of the elitist idea that the better classes have access to a profound and complicated truth that the rest of us cannot grasp. Where we have merely sensory reactions (experience), they have reason and analysis (knowledge). Our critical reaction to the snow actually revealed our failure to understand The Truth, as unveiled by The Science, rather than revealing their wrongheadedness in predicting an ‘end to snow’. We are ‘simple’, they are ‘reasoned’.
In 2011, we should take everything that is said by this new doom-mongering expert caste with a large pinch of salt – and then spread that salt on the snow which they claimed had disappeared from our lives.

One of the joys of on-line publishing is the access one has to excellent prose and stimulating ideas.

I have long subscribed to the view that the fuss over climate is nothing but a contrivance, the climatocracy merely invoking the latest of a long series of potential doom scenarios as an imperative that justifies their continued and expanded control over society. The interest of the ruling elite is solely in the promulgation of the exercise of power, a control greatly diminished by the inherent democratization of globalization stemming from dynamic changes in technology, communication and finance.

Ecomyths are not about the science. They are founded on the selective use and exploitation of science in the service of elite ideology.

What is re-assuring is that the lay public has not yet completely succumbed to somnolence and winter remains palpably still winter despite any amount of alarmist AGW hype.

the broader persepctive

2011-01-02T16:33:00.001-05:00

James Delingpole ended 2010 with an excellent commentary. He writes:

...the reason I bang on about AGW is not because I’m obsessed with “Climate Change” but because I recognise it as a strategically vital campaign in a much broader global culture war.
This is why I believe this year’s most important publication is not any of the superb crop of books on AGW...but the book that goes closest to the heart of this great ideological struggle, Christopher Snowdon’s The Spirit Level Delusion.

In particular, Delingpole appreciates the manner with which Snowden not only eviscerates the stasis pre-occupation with equality but also its prevailing mantra wherein:

Limiting choice, reducing wealth and lowering aspirations are now openly advocated as desirable ends in themselves.

Using De Tocqueville, Snowden makes the point that liberty is not lost overnight but fades incrementally:

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Not only do I echo James' sentiments, I offer my thanks for a good way to start the New Year: a renewed commitment to the implementation of dynamism and a well written book to read and share.

Wind follies

2010-12-30T11:15:00.006-05:00

Wind isn’t an energy solution, it’s a visual placebo to make hippies feel better about themselves.

This was such a delightful quote that I had to post both it and the original comment which points out that during the current cold snap in the UK the existing wind turbines had to be heated to prevent them from seizing: not only did the windmills not contribute any power, they drew power during the peak cold period.

The continued failing of wind power in every jurisdiction should be sufficient for any sane policy analyst to reject the imposition (sorry, progressive introduction) of feed in tariffs to subsidize such "green" energy follies elsewhere. Sadly the high price of wind and solar is still being foisted onto the public by governments caught in their thrall to an ideology that is neither progressive, green nor sustainable.

If we accept as a policy constraint that the future is indeed difficult to forecast, we should at least also accept experience and observed data as a basis for the revision of policy and as a corollary to assertive claims of dystopian certainty.

Furthermore, the science is rarely definitive and always subservient to the ideology:

...climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy-based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models. (Here and here)

We should also pay more attention to where and from whom, such dystopian claims originate. For every stupid idea, there usually is a stupid, vain and privileged proponent. And, often, they are published.

Moreover, we should also be wary of the assertive authority that peer review is used to invoke:

If peer review is to be thought of primarily as a quality assurance method, then sadly we have lots of evidence of its failures.

We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside.

We get the government we elect. And governments embrace policy options they consider the public will condone.

Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Kierkegaard

Cancun in context

2010-12-08T11:05:00.006-05:00

Writing over at Spiked, Ben Pile supplies this excellent summary of the Cancun conference and what it reveals about the true status of concern over climate:

...science is a slow process; politics happens much faster. In the rush to get the most recent research under the noses of policymakers, those engaged in the climate debate show that climate politics exists before climate science has even got its thermometer out.
The trouble with evidence-based policymaking is that, when doubt about the evidence emerges, the policymaking grinds to a halt. In order to continue with the creation of environmental bureaucracies and political institutions, fresh certainty has to be supplied.
That’s not to say that ‘climate change isn’t happening’, nor to suggest that it won’t be a problem. However, the alarmist narrative which created the basis for international climate policy has exhausted itself. By over-stating things in the past, it created the conditions for its later embarrassment. In order to sustain the political momentum, science has had to do PR. And the effects are all too plain.

Some of the confused "victims" in all this are the many scientists who are not a part of the climatocracy but genuinely work through the scientific details of the dynamics of climate change. They remain largely convicted about the basic science, tend to under-estimate the influence environmental alarmism has had on perception of their work and concomitantly, had placed too much faith on the authoritative nature of the IPCC as the definitive word on climate change.

As Pile states:

The problem is the broader expectation that science can be instructive; that ‘what to do about climate change’ can be simply read off from clear scientific evidence. The evidence isn’t clear. It is contradictory. It changes. Science is confused by the political demand for certainty, for the true story.
Science and policymaking are imitating the news. Rather than waiting for genuine scientific development, scientific organisations engaged in the policymaking process produce summaries of the latest speculation on demand. This speculation is intended to add urgency to the process by defeating the doubt that besets the policymaking. But it does so at the expense of a sober understanding of the climate and our relationship to it. This is acceptable under the rubric of the precautionary principle, which allows policymakers to aim to be safe rather than sorry by accepting approximations of ‘science’ in lieu of certainty. But this reveals that science – as an institution, rather than a process – is much less involved in discovery than in supplying climate politics and its bureaucracies with legitimacy.

When science adopts as a founding premise the precautionary principle it is no longer a neutral, objective search for truth. Adoption of the precautionary principle as a presumptive premise is the adoption of environmentalist ideology as the defining narrative for understanding, a predisposition for a particular political interpretation and determination of findings. The science has become inherently politicized.

Update: so climate science becomes politicized, but why does politics need climate science as the latest symbol of environmental alarmism?

As has been pointed out frequently over at Climate Resistance, the allure of climate as a defining narrative for politics is that it provides a moral imperative for a generation of politicians lacking a cause.

As Mick Hume writes, the ruling class are conformists without a cause, with the result that they have no real allegiance to the substance of any issue. About Nick Clegg, Hume writes:

one thing he is not is a traitor. To be a traitor to a cause, you first need to have one to betray. Clegg, like the other top parliamentarians of the age, is a conformist without a cause.
...this u-turn should have come as a shock only to those – many of them supposedly jaundiced journalists – who fell in wide-eyed wonder for the myths of ‘Cleggmania’ in the first place. Remember how, in the spring of the General Election campaign, the Lib Dems were supposed to stand for a new politics of honesty and principle, a fresh approach that would overthrow the discredited order at Westminster?

His words echo those of Victor Davis Hanson about Barrack Obama. The names and places change, the meme does not.

ideas and change

2010-12-07T15:25:00.006-05:00

I have been reading a lot lately over at Judith Curry's site where she has a number a excellent threads ongoing and a range of viewpoints that largely seem to want to respect Judith's attempt to move beyond partisan rhetoric on climate issues.

I also read earlier today this piece on Victor Davis Hanson's lament for the paucity of moral imperative within the contemporary ruling class. (Also discussed here).

The connecting construct is the central role that ideology plays in how people view their world and how ideology then conditions their response and reactions to change.

I responded to the discussion of education versus indoctrination at Judith's with this comment:

What many do not consider about education and ideas is the role that ideology plays. Not wanting to play with semantics, a basic definition of ideology (see Wikipedia) would suggest that:

ideology is a coherent system of ideas, relying upon a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis, but are subjective choices that serve as the seed around which further thought grows. According to this perspective, ideologies are neither right nor wrong, but only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorizing the world. The pluses and minuses of ideology range from the vigor and fervor of true believers to ideological infallibility. Excessive need for certitude lurks at fundamentalist levels in politics and religions.

From my perspective, I have long maintained that ideology functions as a filter for our ideas and thinking: it filters what we absorb, how we receive information and ideas, constructs and concepts, the data we accept, that which we reject. At the same time, ideology is a filter through which our own communication takes place.

Thus, logically, we can consider the extent to which people are aware of their own ideology and the role it plays relative to their education and intellectual development. I would posit that the more more we are conscious of our own ideology the more open-minded we are -- but that too is a projection of my own ideological perspective, because I value open-mindedness I associate increased consciousness and awareness as virtues and conflate them with a positive ideological trait, open-mindedness.

Certainly, if I want to organize a radical activist group, my ideas about open-mindedness may not be so positive and I would value certitude much more highly.

We should not presume that all educators view education the way we as individual educators do: it is not correct to presume all scientists seek the "truth" or that "objectivity" is a value in education above all others. These are value constructs that reflect the ideology of those proposing them.

Many intellectuals support the proposition that all knowledge is contingent. What we think is absolute and certain is only as absolute and certain as the knowledge we have. Every so often an Einstein pops up and changes that presumptive knowledge. At this juncture we are straying into both philosophy and meta-physics, and I am about as far down those respective limbs as I am comfortable...

So, what does this have to do with climate, education and indoctrination? Everything. People may agree on the ideas: education is good, indoctrination as bad, but then in practice, in pronouncements, in communicative practice commit an act that is for them "educational" which for others from a different ideological perspective is to them "indoctrination".
Add in the capacity for political entities to be explicitly Orwellian in their use and misuse of language and we get the situation we have today.

Perhaps the best we can achieve is open dialogue with tolerance and an absence of arrogance, personalization and political agendas. Sometimes we get two of the three: rarely all three!

To which I would add here that many educators are themselves blind to their own ideological presumptions and that academia has a long history of disputes that reflect an inability for the protagonists to find a commons with sufficiency enough to resolve their presumptions, use of language and/or ideas.

In many ways, the art of successful politics is the ability to appeal to as wide a spectrum of opinion and ideas as possible with the same set of words, constructs and concepts. The utility of the term sustainability in politics is due to the resonance of the term with so many varied publics.

The issue facing climate activists today is that their mantra of AGW no longer has extensive resonance and hurriedly seeking to replace terminology is an insufficient solution for many who now view as indoctrination the ideas and facts they previously mistook as education.

A sullen, gloomy realization that maybe, just maybe, they got it all wrong is beginning to dawn upon the less unintelligent delegates. So the exit strategy is being quietly, hastily constructed.

What is left is the climate version of Groundhog Day.

science not politics

2010-12-06T08:05:00.003-05:00

One of the most common complaints by skeptics is that the climate models (upon which climate change predictions rest) are not very accurate. Moreover, there is a perception that the reason for this is that basic premises reflect ideology rather than physical science.

This perspective is given additional traction by the publication of this refereed journal paper, which concludes:

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its “sources” as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships. Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart.

Do we have something better than GCMs when it comes to establishing policies for the future? Our answer is yes: we have stochastic approaches, and what is needed is a paradigm shift. We need to recognize the fact that the uncertainty is intrinsic, and shift our attention from reducing the uncertainty towards quantifying the uncertainty (see also Koutsoyiannis et al., 2009a). Obviously, in such a paradigm shift, stochastic descriptions of hydroclimatic processes should incorporate what is known about the driving physical mechanisms of the processes. Despite a common misconception of stochastics as black-box approaches whose blind use of data disregard the system dynamics, several celebrated examples, including statistical thermophysics and the modelling of turbulence, emphasize the opposite, i.e. the fact that stochastics is an indispensable, advanced and powerful part of physics. Other simpler examples (e.g. Koutsoyiannis, 2010) indicate how known deterministic dynamics can be fully incorporated in a stochastic framework and reconciled with the unavoidable emergence of uncertainty in predictions.

Now cutting through the standard academic boiler plate -- there is something better, it is our approach -- the take home message is that present GCM models are not the accurate projection they are claimed to be. A stochastic approach may yield better results, but while that might work scientifically it is a certain non-starter politically.

A stochastic relationship is, by definition, a random process with defined probabilities. Environmental ideology does not allow for random processes: it is entirely predicated upon the certainty of human agency upon which to promulgate its dogma of restraint and regulation. Moreover, soci0-economic data are immune to probabilistic modeling precisely because they entail humans and free choice.

No serious economist takes the Stern report as a valid projection of the future. But it is necessary as an input to drive the IPCC models. Those models are not an accurate representation of past climate trends. The error may not be large, but the global re-organization of society has been promoted by climate alarmists on the basis of temperature changes of less than this margin of error.

Admitting this constraint has two concomitant effects: it both restores the credibility of the science on climate change and removes its entire political imperative.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

2010-12-04T18:38:00.023-05:00

While the UK, large parts of North America and a significant proportion of Europe is dealing with the first vestiges of severe winter in the form of record breaking cold temperatures and snowfall, the climatocracy are convening in Cancun. The sharp juxtaposition of these two circumstances have not passed unnoticed and commentators have discussed everything from:

When is it weather and when is it climate? Does it matter?
The apocalypse is now...or soon, we just have to re-define the fear and the causative factor
Which probably won’t happen during the Cancun decay
But could be what is beyond Cancun
Except all that is evident for now is a green collapse
Somewhat emblematic of the status of science after climategate
Which is indicative of the fact that all scams die and the climatocracy can turn out the lights the party is over
Which just leaves the question of how to fix the problem?

Which brings to question, what is the problem and how is it being framed?

In the wake of Climategate, the collapse of contrivance at Copenhagen and the widespread recognition of this fact at Cancun, what is the real question?

The lessons of AGW require that we must address the failure of the academy and not just a cadre of bullies indulging in expertise politics.

At Judith Curry’s site I posted this reply within her thread on how to respond the Congress and its questions on how the fiasco of AGW evolved.

· This point cannot be over-emphasized but often is over looked. The majority of scientists may indeed be nice people but that does not mean they are objective, exist absent of personal motives or free of ideology. The predominant ideology of most environmental scientists remains both elitist and liberal/democratic, which means they largely prescribe to an ecological meme that despite its consistent refutation is rejected by the intellectual elite who simply “know better”. So when Lomborg published his book (which, in turn, originally was an attempt to vilify Simon) his results were dismissed as being “wrong” and when that was not sufficient, he was attacked in the same manner as climate “denialists”.

· A large part of the problem is the culture of academia and the reality that the merely competent in any field of inquiry greatly outweigh the gifted and talented. Because someone is published and published a lot is not the same as saying they are insightful, merely industrious.

· The basic problem with the IPCC is that as a bureaucratic entity and process it elevated industry and empire building within academia and sought to equate this with academic ability and insight: they are not the same. Thus in an academic version of the Peter Principle, we had many people elevated to positions of power where they engaged in an exercise of expert politics.

· Notice that the word “science” is largely absent in all this. That is because the whole situation was driven by ideology and politics and the science became subsumed within this.

· The sad part is that few within the academy actually stood tall and called people out on this: those that did, myself included, found ourselves all the more marginalized. There is a reason skeptical voices within academia are older, senior or near retirement: to question the golden goose of research funding when research funds are not only a proxy for productivity but an indicator of excellence is career suicide.

· Why do I blog? I blog for my own sanity and because it is the only alternative if one is to actually focus on policy within environment and actually question the pervasiveness of the environmentalist dogma.

· Lastly, non-scientists are vilified for examining “science” questions. But all manner of scientists express political and policy opinions freely without ever studying or examining these areas of enquiry with any rigor. It is a most crass double standard of hypocrisy that is blatant in practice and in its acceptance as the norm.

· Chicken and pig go for breakfast. Decide on bacon and eggs. The chicken was engaged, the pig was committed.

· Policy analysts have nothing to lose in this discussion: career climate scientists everything. Sadly, some lost their integrity very early. Some are just discovering the consequences of not speaking up. Others still cling to the same prevailing ideology they always have and seek to dismiss all this fuss as inconsequential.

· Last month another academic (an IPCC Nobel winner as he always mentions) sought to have the senior alumni at my university rescind its invitation to me to speak as my talk would be “improper” and “invalid” plus a whole host of other pejorative terms.

· No the sociology at work here cannot be over stated.

Martin Durkin makes many of these same points here.

The collapse of contrivance

2010-11-27T11:10:00.007-05:00

In my presentation last week, I indicated that Climategate and Copenhagen together had combined to signal the collapse of contrivance: the use of climate change as the central narrative of environmentalist dogma and the re-distribution of wealth.

Today, on the opening of the largely irrelevant meetings in Cancun, the mainstream media (left and right) has officially declared that the collapse of contrivance is a reality: here and here.

This collapse leaves the science of climate in somewhat of a quandary. Facing the certain collapse of their source funding, the community is finally awakening to the need to communicate more effectively with the public at large that elects the governments that supply the money that supports their research meanderings.

Judith Curry recently attempted to get her visitors to engage in an exercise intended to raise the level of the game. Some posters got it, some, sadly, remained anchored in the arrogance of bafflement that the great unwashed does not grant anyone with a PhD in climate an automatic genuflection.

So, what is it skeptics (and the majority of the public now) don't get? Well here is a list:

while most everyone recognizes that the greenhouse effect exists and is necessary, they do not get how a trace gas, CO2 at 0.03% of the atmosphere, can function as the global thermostat, while water vapor at 97% of the atmosphere is just some passive feedback mechanism

why water vapor acts as a negative feedback on the effects of global warming, the models rely upon water vapor being a positive feedback mechanism for AGW alarmism

how temperatures could have exceeded today's levels as recently as 1000 yrs. ago and yet levels of CO2 were at their "historically" safe level
what has fundamentally changed in the earth's atmosphere that the same trace gas that was unrelated to higher temperatures 1000 years ago, is today the principal driver of temperature change

we have difficulty reconciling the implied effects of CO2 with wholesale revisions and contraction of the global economy when human contributions of CO2 are but a minor component of the total

we don't get why science is being subordinated to political activism

The lay person may struggle with the intricacies of climate science, but they recognize political rhetoric and polemics from experience. They have no problem comprehending statist policies for centralized command and control.

Moreover, unlike activists, scientists and politicians, they have no problem recognizing that increased centralized planning is at complete odds with the dynamics of globalization (decentralization, increased democratization of information, technology and finance).

Thus, to use the environment, and climate in particular, as the imperative for wholesale economic change requires something more than "a gut feeling". It requires transparency. It requires trust. It requires that reasonable questions of concern are answered comprehensively, not dismissively. It means acknowledging uncertainty.

The politics have damaged the science of climate decisively. And until the climate science community comes to grips with this fact, they will consigned to a central role within the collapsed contrivance. Time to Mann up, stop hiding behind the decline and get real about climate.

A reply by Gavin Schmidt in the Curry thread indicates a start is being made, where he references this latest paper. The abstract states:

The relative contributions of atmospheric long-wave absorbers to the present-day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change.

With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapour is the dominant contributor (~50% of the effect), followed by clouds (~25%) and then CO2 with ~20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles.

Unlike pervasive AGW dogma, this paper recognizes that water vapor and clouds are major variables and places the role of CO2 in context. It also presents the mainstream case in a manner that is accessible to those who are not believers in that dogma -- kinda like science. Who would have thought.

A second h/t to Curry for this thread and her sincere attempts to move the debate forward.

Those that troll the internet however, appear to be having a hard time moving beyond the insults, the dismissals and the arrogant assertions that frustrate those who would actually discuss issues.

As Delingpole notes in frustration:

...the scientific detail is peripheral. And the reason it’s peripheral is because a corrupt, mendacious political, scientific, corporate and media establishment has rigged it that way

Meanwhile, the main Green war effort rumbles on regardless. Ecofascism can lose the AGW battle because – as befits the Leninist method underpinning its philosophy – AGW was never more than a convenient means to an end. Controlling the world, is what this war is ultimately about – not saving it for Mother Gaia.

Why would the IPCC lie to us?

2010-11-26T13:10:00.006-05:00

After a class presentation and in the context of an extended discussion of why one would or would not subscribe to a belief in AGW, one of my students finally posed the central question that vexes many: "why would the IPCC lie to us?"

It is a question that many use rhetorically as if it is all that is required to re-assert the ascendancy of their axiomatic dogma:

you can't possibility be questioning the authority of the IPCC?
can you?
the science?
the scientists?

The IPCC was not established to examine climate, nor climate change. It was established to provide a comprehensive and objective assessment of scientific, technical and socio-economic information that could lead to a better understanding of human-induced climate change.

We get the answers to the questions we ask. The IPCC has always been a process structured and guided by the politics of environmentalism and not any science of discovery.

Consequently, when the exaggerations, biases and mis-conducts subsumed within the IPCC process are revealed, it should not be surprising that its leading beneficiaries resort to rhetorical questions, ad hominem attacks and bluster.

Sadly, these tactics persist and they persist at the highest levels within academia as this wonderful rebuttal by James Delingpole illustrates.

Common sense is neither skepticism, nor denial

2010-11-18T14:25:00.005-05:00

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.

This is the conclusion to Richard Lindzen's Congressional Testimony this week. Earlier he states:

The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak –and commonly acknowledged as such.

Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation.

We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative.

One would think such testimony, based on hard science would suffice: politically we would re-frame the discussion of climate towards a proper goal of understanding and comprehending the earth's basic systems, free of ideologically driven political agendas.

O.K. so that's just way too naive. But at least one would hope the basic narrative would begin to be adjusted to better reflect scientific reality.

Even that it seems may be beyond the reach of too many committed environmental activists.

As James Delingpole commented on the mainstream media's (lack of) response to the Climategate revelations:

Like the Bourbons, the watermelons of the global green movement have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from Climategate. For them, AGW has never been about science or objective truth. It has always been just a pretext.

Many academics are scrambling to re-frame climate into a "new" broader meta-narrative of environmental politics in the hopes that it will somehow confirm and continue to justify their ongoing research unhindered by consideration of such pesky aspects as:

axiomatic presumptions
verifiable data
empirical measurement
open dialogue
data disclosure
appropriate methodology
good scientific practice

Sadly, what many of these academic scientists do not realize nor accept is that the opposition they have faced has never been to the science: it has always been to the excessive, unwarranted and unaccountable use of their science within an assertive and oppressive political meme.

Good climate science is not at issue. The politicization of science, the assertion of ideology as scientific pretext and biased academic practices are at issue. Sadly, they remain so.

From my perspective, the responsibility for addressing this issue rests with academics, not with the politicians, bloggers or the mainstream media. It is only when the academy determines that poor conduct and expertise politics debase the science and ceases to condone such manipulation, that it will cease.

This does not imply censorship: rather it requires academics to do what they supposedly already are doing, but do it properly. For example:

a review of a paper should not be cursory glance at the citations to see if they are "approved" but should be an audit of methodology, data and findings
more dialogue of ideas should occur in real time using blogs, and
fraudulent behaviour and intimidation should not be sanctioned and excused by passive acceptance, academic doublespeak and an obsessive obsequiousness towards research funding.

Sadly, reading various comments this week, suggests that both the mainstream media and the majority of academics appear to be taking completely the opposite tack, seeking to re-rehabilitate those exposed by Climategate in a full-court press to re-assert the mantra of AGW dogma.

There is no attainment of learning for the lazy. Kauthilya.

Climategate, Copenhagen and the Collapse of Contrivance

2010-11-11T09:32:00.006-05:00

Two years ago I was invited to speak to the Senior Alumni at my host institution, the University of Western Ontario. I spoke on the issue of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths and my talk was enthusiastically received by the audience. It was also extensively, and accurately, covered by the campus newspaper, which made my talk its lead story for its next edition.

Well this is where things got interesting. Another person in my department, heavily involved in the IPCC process, by the name of Gordon McBean, took it upon himself to circulate a petition condemning both my right to speak and castigating the Western News for (a) covering my talk at all, and (b) not editing their coverage with a “corrective” message reciting approved AGW dogma.

I responded to this attempt to suppress my academic freedom with a rebuttal piece which I simultaneously published here on ecomyths.

Fast forward to Fall 2009, and the leaked Climategate emails confirm that such intimidation tactics, expertise politics and bullying were characteristic of a cadre of leading figures within the IPCC sphere. In my own small way, I felt somewhat vindicated and recognized that McBean was my own version of a warmist zealot unable to suppress their zeal for climate conformity with any comprehension of academic good conduct.

So, why this post, why revisit old wounds? Well ahead of my planned talk November 16 to those same Senior Alumni, McBean has not even waited for me to talk, not even bothered to see for himself the text of my presentation but has been “proactive” and took it upon himself to contact the organizers and suggest that my invitation to speak is improper and should be withdrawn.

So now I am elevated into that category of speaker on topics climatic to have their invitation withdrawn. Except that I am not. My invite comes from the Senior Alumni of the University of Western Ontario who do not cower before bullies, are not intimidated by blowhard windbags and do not fear people who indulge in cowardly politics.

And now for the rest of the story, (as Paul Harvey used to intone so memorably) ...what McBean did not know was that when I was invited to speak, I initially declined knowing the Senior Alumni had garnered a degree of controversy from my last talk, at which time I was informed that yes indeed the organizers were fully aware of this and that was an additional reason why their membership most expressly wanted to invite me back: they liked my talk, they liked the views I expressed, wanted to hear more and if that upset the likes of McBean, well that would be just an extra bonus along the way!

I hope you too enjoy the presentation, which is now posted along side my other PowerPoint, here at ecomyths where the truth is our friend and not a political toy for intellectual toddlers.

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. Voltaire

Apologies to anyone trying to download the presentation, I made some changes to correct some typos and did not copy the correct file from mediafire: all is now fixed.

you bring an academic to a tea party but you can't make him drink

2010-11-04T23:22:00.004-04:00

Scientific American had a recent poll on the state of climate science. The conclusions?

With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda" and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity.

The shift in public attitudes is not confined to the rampant right, tea drinkers or the lunatic fringe. Indeed, attempts by scientists to impugn opposition to AGW by inferring a lack of understanding, political motive or simple denial of science, should now be passe.

Sadly they aren't. For every Roger Piekle Jr, who comprehends the nuances of politics as they apply to science and Judith Curry, who seeks to mirror her scientific integrity with personal integrity, there remain far too many academics who, as yet, have not

publicly differentiated their personal ideology from their scientific pronouncements
recognized that their expertise in some aspect of climate science does not extend to an expertise in science policy
distinguished their personal politics from their understanding of the policy process, especially as it applies to climate, energy and sustainability
expressed clearly and unequivocally their disdain for those scientists who have manipulated and politicized the IPCC process, and
expressed their professional, unbiased assessment of alarmist pronouncements utilized by academics and universities to sell the public an ideologically driven message on sustainability, impending crises and environmental policies.

Sadly, my own university still reflects the fact that far too many academics remain myopically addicted to the kool-aid of environmental alarmism and stubbornly allergic to reformist qualities of any alternatives.

Why Watts Up With That? is where its at

2010-10-12T22:16:00.002-04:00

More evidence today on why many consider Anthony Watts' blog Watts Up With That? to be the best blog.

First is his publication and discussion of the resignation from the American Physical Society by long time and prominent member, Hal Lewis. Reason for his decision? The APS dogmatic stance on AGW and their lack of commitment to the principles of scientific integrity:

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

As Watts points out, the resignation and its rationale are significant for all scientists and those interested in the implementation of effective policy and should be read in their entirety.

The second example is this wonderful graphic:

and the accompanying post on the latest peer-reviewed publication which concludes:

It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.

Taken in conjunction, the two posts confirm both the position of WUWT as one of the best sources of emerging information and perspective on the web, and the rapidly changing status of climate alarmism one year after ClimateGate and the collapse of the Copenhagen conference.

No longer is climate alarmism the default, nor the defining paradigm of accepted science. It is still a prominent perspective but it is no longer an un-questioned, axiomatic construct.

Increasingly critics of AGW are described as skeptics, and no longer demonized as "deniers". The tenor has changed. The politics has morphed into a wider promotion of a more nebulous and still emerging concern for "energy" -- still embracing the familiar narratives of limits; anti-consumption; anti-capitalism; soft green, warm and fuzzy ecology, and; centralized, elite planning -- but a notable absence of global warming or climate change embedded within its central imperative.

AGW has become global warming, has become climate change, has become climate disruption, has become the albatross of science.

how not to win friends and influence people...

2010-10-01T23:19:00.003-04:00

Well the bar for tasteless, stupid and offensive eco-hype has been set at a new low with the heavily promoted but disastrous release of the 10:10 No Pressure film, excellently dissected by James Delingpole.

Characteristic of the all-time box office failures, No Pressure may be the Ishtar, Gigli or Heaven's Gate of the environmental movement. Huge hype, major talent, big budget and no one with enough common sense or courage to say "no", this is not satirical, not funny, not good communications strategy.

Why? Sadly it appears those involved in the production felt justified that their message was so significant that their ends justified the means.

This attitude characterizes the Teflon Doomsayers, the professional fear mongers who direct the eco-myth disinformation program: get them young, keep them dumb and instill them with fear!

As Budiansky summarizes:

...while the entire presumable goal, purpose, and raison d'être of applied environmental science is to solve environmental problems, any environmental scientist who dares to suggest that problems are being solved is asking for trouble... we have arrived at a state where even the most wildly irrational pessimism is treated with reverence, while the most cautiously sober optimism is ridiculed.

What I find almost inexplicable in all of this, however, is how the scientific doomsayers get away over and over again with making predictions that are fabulously, ridiculously — and demonstrably — incorrect, without the slightest repercussions upon their credibility or careers. Predictions of impending doom are published based on absurd methodologies and threadbare evidence of a kind that in the normal course of scientific affairs would be sufficient to ruin careers ten times over, and the authors walk away from them without a scratch.

Just another example of how the unbelievable can become the accepted.

Or perhaps this time, this is a Myth Too Far and just as with climategate, the greater mass of public will say enough already.

Update:

This insightful conclusion:

Rather than an isolated aberration, then, the 10:10 video can be seen as the end result of years of ad hominem attacks meant to marginalize skeptics and make it unnecessary to actually address their concerns about the science. Perhaps this video will mark a turning point where we can finally start talking about the science rather than attacking motivations.

Even social democracy is changing

2010-09-23T09:30:00.004-04:00

Change is inevitable, even in politics it seems. As the US braces for a big Tea Party in November, other democracies have seen traditional centrist, parties of ordained power for life, suffer significant losses. This year, it has happened in Britain and in Australia. Now even the social democratic haven of Sweden has seen a massive change in its prevailing political landscape.

As Nathalie Rothschild discusses:

...the problem is that the Social Democrats, along with their opposition in the centre-right alliance, have lost any real connection with the electorate and increasingly treat politics as a technocratic, managerial job.
...all of the major mainstream parties demonstrated their belief that debate about big ideas should be erased from the political process.

When Fidel Castro finally admits what has been evident to everyone, especially Cubans, for several decades, that the socialist economic model of Cuba is not a sustainable economic system, people everywhere look at their politics and ask, when are they going to change? Realization is beginning to set in for the majority, that big spending only produces bigger government. Moreover, not only does government spend inefficiently, it does so ineffectively.

One result is voter anger and the rise of Tea Party protest style movements. As Codevilla's seminal article discusses, there is widespread push back to the "ruling class" in every democracy, fueled by a growing resentment to perceived entitlement, intellectual snobbery, imposed green moralism and the imposition of patently unsustainable "sustainable" programs, which reflect the poverty of political thought and moral imperative within those same detached, political elites.

Another reaction is the broader abandonment of politics itself -- as voters look at their choices, they see a plethora of political taupe -- bland, easy to look at, passive, innocuous, not offend anyone, meaningless,background. No foreground leadership. No bold statement of intent, of policy, of originality. Just oceans of taupe.

And the political establishment's response when the intellectual poverty of their politics is revealed? Add a bit of lipstick and trot the same stuff back out there again.

As discussed here on many occasions, sustainability is not precluded by, nor a function of, science. Sustainability is entirely a question of political implementation. Slowly, inexorably, the change is going to come.

Sing it Otis.

changing perspective

2010-09-17T15:12:00.004-04:00

Facts don't change your perspective, your perspective changes your facts. Seems so axiomatic to me, that I use it to summarize the defining mantra for this blog.

Not surprisingly, when I use this statement in class with my students, I discover that it is both a mantra and not axiomatic. The irony being that the blog exists to both challenge prevailing mantras in environmentalism and to examine all things axiomatic.

So let's examine the construct of data and changing perspective.

Bjorn Lomborg provides an excellent starting point and example. Recently, the media was quick to point out that Lomborg had undergone a road to Damascus conversion and one of the world's leading deniers was suddenly a believer in AGW.

Notwithstanding the fact that Lomborg has never denied climate change, nor human agency (not a denier then) but merely had the temerity to point out that climate change is

not a pressing issue,
not our most important issue
nor anything we can do anything about (an economic pragmatist maybe?)

the media and warmist, alarmist activists of all stripes gleefully sent emails quoting his conversion as smug proof that an Icon of contrariness had recanted. (Not enough to be admitted into their inner sanctum of smug self-righteousness of course, but enough to vindicate their vilification of him since his landmark refutation of the Litany).

Well. I still haven't read his new book for myself but it appears Lomborg has published an op-ed to clarify the remarks in the Guardian. Apparently, it appears comments by Lomborg that climate change is real and human agency is a factor, were, how shall we say, embellished?

All that has changed in Lomborg's view is that we now have the possibility and the capability of addressing climate change not through taxation nor carbon trading by government's (a delusional prospect fraught with fraud, self-interest and unsustainable suppositions) but, rather, by technological innovation and advancement in new energy -- not just alternate fuels but new means of energy generation.

This is a lot closer to my understanding of his views -- and if he is echoing Schellenberger and Nordhaus, he is reflecting a strong emerging, adaptive management approach to climate policy also advocated by Pielke Jr. which does much to shift the policy debate to energy policy and seeks to leave the ideological debate over climate policy behind. Again, all of these are policy people discussing how the climate science has been politicized within public policy.

The distinction between science research and public policy has been a subject of high contention within environmentalism for some time: the debate over climate change has served to both polarize and exacerbate viewpoints. Post Copenhagen and post-Climategate, there is now considerable movement to move beyond the ideological posturing -- sadly not all parties are embracing this shift in dialogue as being constructive.

Which brings us to the central issue: why don't facts change people's perspective, whereas a change in perspective can cause a change in the "facts" as we know them?

The answer is in our ideology, which in turn is a function of how we think and why. Luckily, there are those who seek to improve our understanding of how and why we think like we do and why we do or do not act rationally in response to facts that accord or contradict our perspective.

Resonance and dissonance. Leadership is resonating with people. Good leaders empower people to make changes by visioning a perspective that resonates with their ideas, fits the facts as people understand them and, offers them hope for improvement.

The problem with environmentalism is it does none of these things. Instead it evokes:

an elitist mantra
enforced by appeals to authority
requiring conformity with dictated changes
that fit the facts of those enforcing the change and
not the reality of those suffering the imposition of change.

Junk Science: the basis for all Ecomyths

2010-06-16T08:39:00.006-04:00

At the heart of all ecomyths is a mis-use of science. Sometimes it is a mis-representation of data, sometimes it is a lack of proper context, sometimes it is an inappropriate study protocol, poor study design, bias in variables or method, or just suspect interpretation. Sometimes it is the subservience of science to ideological presumption, sometimes it goes beyond manipulation and exaggeration and constitutes lies. All are possible within Junk Science.

Terence Corcoran introduces the 12th Annual Junk Science Week in the Financial Post with this explanation of Junk Science:

Our standard definition is that junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.
That definition needs to be refined. It was shaped by the idea that junk science is strictly the bailiwick of scaremongers.
But science can also be warped to promote the opposite of fear. Unscientific hope mongering may be just as prevalent as scare mongering. In some ways, the role of the media in hope mongering is more important than in scare mongering. In the hands of journalists bent on doing what they think is socially beneficial work making people aware of new developments, even good science can be twisted, distorted and exaggerated for political purposes.

Examples of contemporary Junk Science profiled in this year's series include:

the absence of scientific evidence to validate the scaremongering around the amount of salt in people' diet,
the assertion that smog is claiming thousands of deaths despite improvements in air quality and, of course,
the harder to kill than a vampire continuance of climate junk despite virulent discreditation and refutation of every kind.

Not only do these profiles highlight how and why people should discount these ecomyths, they highlight the more insidious nature of ecomyths themselves. If Junk Science is so easily disproven, why then do ecomyths continue to be embraced by governments, agencies and authorities even though the evidence of the Junk Science upon which they are based is clearly and categorically outlined?

The answer is both simple and depressing: ecomyths are a contrivance. The issue is not people's health in the case of salt, nor people's health with smog, nor the sustainability of the environment with climate change. These are the excuse, the contrivance upon which public compliance to policies and p[programs is required. The focus is those policies and programs, and the control which they seek to enforce over people and their lifestyles. Ecomyths are merely a contrivance by which power can be exerted over people, their lives and their lifestyles. Junk Science is the authoritative assertion of "The Truth" by those whose ideology is predicated on the desire to impose control over others.

Beyond Petroleum indeed.

sustainability is change

2010-04-07T10:50:00.008-04:00

The worst thing to happen to the concept of sustainable development was its devolution into sustainability. The semantics are important because they belie two key points:

the denial of change as the central construct defining sustained growth and future prosperity,and
the transference of a human management construct into a purely scientific measure of precautionary possibility.

The recent events in Haiti and Chile show the consequences of this shift in thinking.

Both Haiti and Chile experienced large earthquakes: in Haiti the effects were severe, in Chile they were not. In the past two decades, Haiti has been subjected to extensive "sustainability" thinking from NGOs and government intervention in the economy: it has neither experienced development nor is it any more sustainable than when those efforts started. In contrast, Chile has sustained its development, experienced real economic growth and was able to sustain its population through a natural disaster.

Sustainability is a term derived from the original concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development was predicated on the recognition that environment, economy and society had to be integrated constructs within the management of development for it to be sustainable.

Sustainability is a management construct. The central question it addresses is:

how do we manage growth and future change so that it is sustainable?

Science might provide some measures, some indicators as to levels of sustainability but absent of the integration of environmental measurements with economic indicators and social variables, those measurements lack interpretive meaning and become co-opted dogma within the ideology of its proponents: hence the emergence of politicized science (and the associated pre-dominance of contrived environmental imperatives for morally constructed political action).

Sustainability is not some game. It does not have a scientifically derived end line measurement, a set of goal posts society should be shooting for.

Sustainability is the process of capacity building that gives communities the capability to adapt to change, sustain their development and provide hope to future generations.

As Fullan states:

Sustainability is the capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose.

Capacity. Providing individuals with the ability and skills they need, empowering them, giving them the confidence, esteem and social conditions under which they can self-actualize.

Engage. Becoming active agents in the determination of their own futures. Being empowered not pawns of governments, NGOs and elites exerting power over them "in their best interest".

Continuous improvement. Leaving the world a better place, a changed place, but a more healthy, prosperous place by embracing technological advancement and improving the human condition. Embracing change as constructive, positive and liberating.

Deep values of human purpose. Sustainability is a management construct for political decision making based on values. Those values should reflect the community's determination of moral standards, cultural differences and preferences. It is contextualized by community and should not be dictated by dogma and elite ideology.

Sustainability is change. Not the denial of change, the suppression of change, nor the control of change.

To implement sustainability effectively we must address this distinction directly in the consideration of power, precaution and the perpetuation of ecomyths..

Indoctrination is not higher education

2010-02-04T08:55:00.004-05:00

I recently responded to a commentary in the National Post that was lamenting the openness of debate in academia around climate change. In the same discussion thread another academic using the moniker "scate" posted a series of comments that illustrated the wide gulf that exists between my own perspective on academia and the role of higher education, and the attitude of many within the halls of academia itself.

Scate's comments were equal part arrogance and self-serving conceit. They reflect a belief that many subjects, especially any involving science, are "tough" and "difficult for the non-expert to grasp". The corollary is that even undergraduates are incapable of understanding the nuances and subtleties of these tough subjects and thus must be "instructed" and "trained" on how to think,lest they mis-understand things. It is only after they have been "taught" how to think correctly, that they are allowed to consider material for themselves, safe in the knowledge that they too will concur with the prevailing paradigm on all matters. Then, the bright few who have shown the ability to conform well to this model are allowed passage into graduate programs where they can receive advanced "training" within the accepted parameters.

Advanced recognition and awe is reserved for those members of the academy who show a capacity for explaining "tough" subject matter in a way that is obtuse and re-inforces the internal vocabulary of the elite within any discipline. Simplicity and clarity of expression are not encouraged, especially when jargon, disciplinary dependent definitions, abbreviations and expressions may be employed to further confer an aura of authority and complexity on any aspect of enquiry.

It is within this conceited, arrogant and mis-guided perspective of "higher education" that the whole IPCC, Climategate, Himalaya-gate and ecomyth fraud resides, festered and continues to be fostered.

It is not surprising that the revelations of abuse and malfeasance were initially documented by bloggers and from those outside the world of academia. Those with the temerity to question the prevailing system from within are quickly and deeply ostracized by the academy. If an academic of the standing and accomplishment of Freeman Dyson can have his intellect suddenly besmirched solely because he allied his free thought with the "wrong" perspective, then it can happen to any academic (most of whom have nothing close to the list of academic accomplishments, awards and publications of the esteemed Dyson).

The whole point here is not whether AGW is "right" or "wrong". The question is how we as a supposedly advanced civilization utilize our best and brightest to examine such complex topics and even more profoundly, how we as an advanced civilization determine who and what constitutes our best and brightest minds.

I would contend that the ability to conform, to parrot correctly the prevailing mantra of any controlling elite, is not the desired nor defining characteristic of the best and brightest intellect. Higher education should be about the fostering and facilitation of lateral thinking, new innovations and intellectual freedom. Sadly, it has become a bastion of political correctness, conformity and intellectual compliance.

Climategate is not surprising, nor is it the exception. Something is indeed rotten in Denmark and it is not solely the science of climate change: it is the prevailing attitude of those who constitute the scientific body and are presently training their adherents.

Still think I am exaggerating? At the next ecomyth demonstration, ask any of the young, committed idealists on the front-lines of the protest what they are protesting and why. Whatever their answer, ask them "and why do you think that?". Their inability to provide a cogent, principled answer with an understanding of underlying constructs and concepts is a powerful indictment of their "training" and the inability of indoctrination to foster free-thinking individuals.

Indoctrination is not designed to produce free-thought. It produces a conformity of thought. Is today's academic training evident in the indoctrinated mantra and dogma of its converts or the insightful questioning of young enquiring minds?

Read any blog discussion thread and you will find academics like "scate" not just defending a system of academic indoctrination but blithely promoting it as higher education. You will also find many zealots who have graduated from this school and carry its message forward with fervour.

Nothing scares a conformist society as much as a free mind that is actively engaged in the pursuit of its own learning. What we do not understand, we fear. What we fear, we seek to destroy.

shifting to energy policy

2010-01-19T23:27:00.002-05:00

Perhaps now with the collapse of the Copenhagen talks, the revelations of abuse from Climategate and the knowledge that the Himalayas are not going to disappear in the immediate future, we can turn our attention to the real issue of cheaper future fuel options, particularly for developing nations.

As is often the case, the template for discussion has been established by another article by the excellent Nordhaus and Shellenberger:

In the end, whether or not the Senate passes a cap-in-name-only climate bill, the long-term failure of Kyoto and all other efforts to establish binding emissions caps is virtually assured and is a function of a basic technological problem. We simply do not have low-carbon technologies today that can at large scale replace fossil fuels at a cost that any political economy in the world is willing to impose upon itself. There will be no political solution to climate change, no binding international agreement to substantially reduce emissions, and no effective domestic carbon cap until low-carbon technologies are much cheaper than they are today.
...Obama was following two decades of magical thinking among both greens and liberal Democrats about energy technology. In this view, energy efficiency pays for itself, solar and wind power are already nearly cost competitive with fossil fuels, and both can quickly and cheaply reduce emissions. This Pollyanna view of fossil fuel alternatives and efficiency, which makes going green seem cheap and easy -- little more than the cost of "a postage stamp a day" -- has provided the justification for green-policy advocacy that has overwhelmingly focused on pollution regulations and carbon pricing while ignoring serious investment in energy research and development.
Incumbent energy interests had, in short, hijacked magical climate thinking for their own uses. They took cap-and-trade legislation and turned it into an opportunity for them to raise energy prices on consumers, invest a fraction of the higher revenues in clean energy, remove existing regulatory obstacles to the construction of coal plants, and lock in their competitive advantage while crowding out energy newcomers, including clean energy firms, for decades to come.
Solving the technology challenge will not be easy, but in terms of our collective wealth and knowledge we are in a better position today than at any other point in our history. In the end, global efforts to address the climate challenge, if they are to succeed, must centrally focus upon the creation of a new and extraordinarily important global public good: the development of low-carbon energy technologies that are cheap, clean, and abundant. After two decades of domestic and international failure to take real action on climate change, it is time for the purveyors of magical thinking to take their exit so that the main act can begin.

I am still far more optimistic about a free market approach to this solution than Nordhaus and Shellenberger, who prefer a contemporary Manhattan Project investment by government, but I can agree with their analysis of the the overall policy objective: eventually, we will need alternate cheap, energy sources. Where we differ is both the approach to this resolution (free market or government directive) and the time scale.

The role of climate alarmism has been to present the immediate need for collective de-carbonisation. Absent of that alarmism, the developed world has substantial low cost energy sources and no real incentive to push the kind of technological advancement Nordhaus and Shellenberger identify. The need today is for low cost energy sources to fuel developing countries: nations that also lack the capacity to independently initiate the type of technological advances cheap alternate energy requires.

So the real issue is: do we wish to view ourselves as a sustainable global community? As much as Nordhaus and Shellenberger correctly identify the need for new energy technology, the most pressing barrier to future prosperity remains our need to reconcile the social imperative for sustainability:

expanding and improving our notions of community
decreasing the specter of fear and its grip on public policy, and
recognition that what differentiates us need not divide us.

Free market or state intervention is irrelevant until such time as we view our collective interest as our own self-interest.

live by the sword....

2010-01-07T14:37:00.006-05:00

It is fashionable amongst some eco-activists to refer to themselves as eco-warrriors. In deference to real troops who fight, and die, to protect people's freedom, I have a problem with the self aggrandizement that activists seek to confer upon themselves with this label.

No matter: if its warriors they wish to be then this is what they can expect:

It appears many of the activists are quick to dish it out but appear shocked that anyone should respond in kind. Not that hypocrisy is new to eco-activism.

Looking at the issue beyond the immediate conflict, a number of questions arise:

how many of the lay public who give money in support of such eco-activism are aware that their money is being used so that, in the name of the environment, young people can roam the oceans of the world in a competitive power boat?
what is the carbon footprint of the power boat? (sorry, I was forgetting that carbon is so yesterday)
geography pop quiz: you want to make a media splash about whaling, do you get a boat and protest (a) Icelandic or Norwegian activity in the North Atlantic, or (b) Japanese activity in the South Pacific?

Not a lot of "eco" and certainly no "warriors".

The Copenhagen Collapse

2009-12-30T12:00:00.000-05:00

Towards year's end and time for lots of people to comment not only on the past year but the past decade. Based on the collapse at Copenhagen, Lorne Gunter makes this valid observation that environmentalism is just the latest manifestation of authoritarian control, of stasis incarnate:

...saving the planet is not what environmentalism is all about. Saving the planet is just the excuse. Controlling other people’s lives and redistributing global wealth is the true goal.
I’m not saying there is a conscious conspiracy by old socialists meeting in secret to rebrand themselves as new environmentalists so they can revive their Cold War-era campaign for international governance and regulation.
Rather, it’s a mindset.
When socialism collapsed as an intellectual movement in the 1990s, the intrusive, holier-than-thou, we-know-best attitude behind it did not disappear, it merely refashioned itself in the last decade as environmentalism.
To be happy, they have to be telling others what to do based on a self-assured belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority.

Change is a constant in life. The essence of sustainability is the capability of communities to adapt to change, something current environmentalism ignores to its detriment.

Rather than embracing change as the essence of sustainability, stasist politics seeks to control change and environmentalism to direct change towards ideological pre-determinism. They are mutually reinforcing bedmates: stasist politics supplying the tools of enforcement, environmentalism the moral imperative for intervention.

It is an ideology that neither seeks, nor values, individual empowerment. In contrast, globalization is predicated upon a massive increase in individual empowerment from information technology. The Copenhagen collapse is evidence that stasist politics is a bankrupt ideology, and so is environmentalism.

the medium is the message

2009-12-20T11:50:00.007-05:00

One of the most basic tenets of politics is controlling the message, spinning the information that is in the public domain and framing the way issues are viewed. As McLuhan famously observed, the medium is the message and no where is this more true today than with the default public record of "fact", Wikipedia.

So, if you wanted to embed science within pre-dominant political consciousness, a key component would require a communications strategy to:

bring the mainstream media on board by special access, the use of alarmist scenarios and iconic graphics that overwhelm any sublte nuances of the real scienc
block anyone who disagreed or might disprove your ideas from publishing in normal, recognized media, say refereed journals
establish a blog that frames your view of the "real" science and refuse to publish comments that fail to conform to your "consensus", and, lastly
establish control over the on-line source of facts, Wikipedia.

The Climategate papers show exactly how the conventional dogma for climate utilized all of these strategies to frame and package their perspective of the science for political consumption.

Of course, the final step was then to demonize anyone who still disagreed, questioned or otherwise objected to this force-feeding of conformity, as a denialist. It was the perfect Orwellian use of newspeak.

Skeptic became a pejorative for the lunatic fringe, rather than a descriptor of essential scientific practice. But since so many within the AGW fraud had already dispensed with such other scientific staples as transparency and empiricism, what was the problem? Their reaction to the Climategate papers continues these tactics. But authoritarian regimes only exist up until the point the public is no longer scared by the bully tactics and the fear the regime seeks to engender.

The political wind has now changed. Copenhagen revealed the extent to which neither the science nor the environment were ever really central to the politics. They were a convenient contrivance. Now their 15 minutes of political limelight is done and the realpolitik of wealth, wealth transference and corruption, sorry influence, will resume normal broadcasting. Watch for a new round of celebrity faces to endorse the new message and whatever path to enlightenment is to be used to package and sell the politics it embraces.

Update: the Team's guy on the inside has had his status as Wikipedia administrator revoked.
It will be interesting to discover if Wikipedia can or "can't handle the truth!". Apparently not.

burden of proof and the precautionary principle

2009-12-16T14:02:00.003-05:00

I have always enjoyed Brian Micklethwait's writing. He has a nice economy of style and a keen insight. Here is his latest post and take on Climategate. He links to the Monckton video that challenges the Team to come clean about their deceit and suggests that the burden of proof in the debate on climate is changing.

Others are less convinced. One primary corollary is the observation that climate alramism and ecomyths are vested in the precautionary principle and not the certitude of their science.

As I have posted previously, slavish adherence to and reliance upon the precautionary principle is the very lifeblood of ecomyths. Their zombie-like ability to morph into new parables for the demise of humanity rests on the continued acceptance of the precautionary principle as both reasonable and beneficial.

The precautionary principle exploits the possible, the "what if?" angst of cultural fears and societal anxieties: it neither requires nor respects the probabilities of scientific observations.

The most damning indictment arising from Climategate is the arrogance and conceit of the scientists involved who thought they could control the politics of precaution they embraced. Little do they realize the speed with which those politics will dispense with them now they are an embarrassment to its cause.

Mind you, nothing seems to be a political embarassment to climate nihilism.

climate nihilism

2009-12-14T21:06:00.003-05:00

Over at Breakthrough, Shellenberger and Nordhaus have posted a provocative commentary on the Contrivance in Copenhagen. Their preface:

From the opening ceremony's video of a little girl running from an earthquake to the promises of emissions reductions, everything taking place in Copenhagen is contrived. The outcome of climate talks -- no treaty, no emissions reductions -- was known in advance. And yet participants pretend there is an unfolding drama. As such, Copenhagen is history's first completely postmodern global event. It's a festival of phoniness. With the ambitions of Versailles but the power of Davos, Copenhagen creates a cognitive dissonance for its creators, which results in ever-more manic displays of apocalypse anxiety and false hope. In the end, Copenhagen tells us more about ourselves -- our post-American world, our fragmented media environment, and our hyper-partisanship -- than about any attempt to slow global warming.

After setting the stage by delineating the post-modern realities and politics of the global political climate, they suggest that:

Lacking any power to effect reality, Copenhagen has thus become a kind of spiritual pilgrimage. But the pilgrimage is postmodern and the faith is bad.

Nihilism is the phenomenon of going to church, saying confession, and sometimes even praying to God, even though you no longer believe that God will do anything for you.

Climate nihilism is the phenomenon of going to Copenhagen, promising to reduce emissions and pretending to believe the promises, even neither though you nor anybody around you has any intention, plan or funding to do so.

Copenhagen is what you get when science lacks the power to re-shape economies, rich nations cannot tell poor ones what to do, and a supposedly common global threat divides rather than unites the world. Copenhagen represents the twilight of modernist idols.

It is a brilliant and incisive piece. It reveals the realpolitik challenges of post-modernism and the failings of post-modernity to create positive, viable narratives for sustainability and future prosperity.

The present generation of youth have never not known environmental awareness. They are immune to protests, posters and placards, the staples of an environmental ideology external to the locus of power. If nothing else, Copenhagen establishes the very political correctness of contemporary environmentalism. It is no longer radical, chic and daring. It is the bureaucratic mainstream of inactivity and broken promises. Its zenith is climate nihilism.

It is in response to this reality that the present generation seeks leadership and empowerment. The Copenhagen conference offers symbolism, not integrity.

Nothing fuels a revolution quite like the discovery that the information you have been fed is dogma, not the truth.

something is rotten in Denmark

2009-12-13T16:02:00.004-05:00

From todays National Post:

Sunday marked the coldest Dec. 13 in Edmonton’s history.

Environment Canada recorded a frigid -46.1 C, or -58.4 C with wind chill, at the Edmonton International Airport at 5 a.m., Environment Canada meteorologist Pierre Lessard said.

The old record of -36.1 C was set last year, he said.

“To break a temperature by 10 degrees is very exceptional,” said Lessard.

Elsewhere, in Copenhagen:

Countries like China and India say the industrialised world must make bigger cuts in emissions and help poor nations to fund a shift to greener growth and adapt to a warmer world.

Richer countries say the developing world's carbon emissions are growing so fast it must sign up for curbs in emissions to prevent dangerous levels of warming.

It appears there is a disconnect between the virtual, modeled world of AGW and the reality of observed, global climate temperatures. Perhaps we just need to start modifying the data sooner, like at the thermometer. Perhaps some university somewhere can get a grant to do this.

Update:

Three must read posts from today: the first characterizes environmentalism as zombie politics; the second has some interesting conjecture on the likelihood that Climategate is the product of an insider leak and why; and the last is a glimpse into the Copenhagen fairy tale.

the harry read me file

2009-12-12T10:36:00.006-05:00

Many will have heard about Climategate. Some will have heard the dismissals that the leaked emails and files are not important to the larger narrative of human induced climate change, which has now supplanted the previous narrative of human induced global warming.

One of the key reasons the leak matters is that it provides a window not only on the conduct of many of the leading scientists in creating the narrative, it goes straight to the claims of scientific robustness and accuracy of the data upon which the claims of crisis are based.

Here is a summation of the Harry Read Me file. It reveals the extent to which the very base data for climate modeling and policy development is presumptive rather than definitive. That's a polite way to say more fiction than fact.

An example:

getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.

Now I have no problem with the fact that the data are incomplete, complex and contradictory. I would expect that, especially since climate itself is a complex, dynamic system about which we really know very little. My objection is the warmist, alarmist insistence on proclamations of data certainty and the necessity for immediate policy actions that are counter-intuitive to the uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge.

It is the deceit and the assertion of ideological dogma in the name of science that offends me:

The Party wants the Earth to be warming, so that its members can establish their power over every aspect of our lives. The Earth has not warmed in a decade, in fact it has gotten colder. But the Party says warmer, and further, says that the warming is due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Come clean, and admit the whole narrative is a political artifice and stop trying to hide behind a sheen of science and claims to a superior environmental morality.

Skepticism

2009-12-09T09:54:00.005-05:00

Christopher Essex also teaches at the University of Western Ontario where I am a professor. He offers this succinct exposition of those who remain skeptical of the climate change dogma.

Three simple questions form the basis for our concern :

Is there really a problem at all? Who says? Oh yeah, how do they know?

What? You thought there’s something more to skepticism’s talking points than simple questions that any reasonable person would ask? But that’s all it ever was about.

There is no political wing of some mystery faction. Scepticism isn’t an ideology. There is no hidden agenda. There are no meetings to plot talking points and define positions. It’s not funded by anyone

The skeptics, who have actually spoken out, are a motley crew of individuals, who don’t only question the party line, but each other as well.
The big money never was in skepticism, although there was some talk about cashing in with a famous skeptics pinup calendar. But we don’t actually need money. We have a secret weapon. Despite the money power fame and influence we are up against, we know that neither the IPCC nor its supporters know what climate will do. No one does.

Sorry, no conspiracy. Some of us even have brand new laptops of our own and have no need to steal one from another professor, nor surreptitiously purchase one from eBay "no questions asked". Nor are we jealous of the limousines, the air travel and the fawning UN entourage. We are mostly just insulted that our resistance to the imposition of dogma should call our own intellectual motives into question.

Meanwhile, for the latest exposition of skepticism and skeptics there is this open letter to the UN.

And, lastly, here is a succinct summation of the whole Climategate fiasco, its relevance and key links to comments, excerpts and the raw leaked/hacked files themselves.

When is data adjustment really data fraud?

2009-12-08T10:57:00.004-05:00

So, the Copenhagen boondoggle has commenced and the hypocrisy is rampant.

Amongst the most galling claims are those that proclaim the changes in climate to be increasingly dire and that the email revelations from Hadley CRU are irrelevant as they do not significantly alter the "facts".

The problem is the emails do call the very facts that undermine the AGW theory into question because they do suggest that the very base data upon which the IPCC process is based are themselves suspect and the product of self-fulfilling manipulation: we know the result that is needed and here it is. The emails provide evidence to suggest this, but in the absence of an audit of the data themselves this remains assertion.

Well here is evidence that moves this claim past assertion and into the realm of substantiated cause for concern.

So, if the science really does matter, more of this type of specific audit of the base climate record is required to demonstrate that the data have not arbitrarily manipulated and biased.

However, if climate change is really only about the politics of constraint and guilt, then the science is irrelevant anyways.

...delegates in the Danish capital have practically glossed over the CRU “Climategate” leaks. That’s partly because they refuse to let the facts get in the way of their cause, but it’s mostly because Copenhagen isn’t about climate change as a physical phenomenon, but rather climate change as an opportunity to regulate people’s lives and incomes on a global scale.

Your Politics Are Showing

2009-12-04T13:05:00.009-05:00

The take home message from this latest post by Roger Pielke, J. is simple and direct:

The American public may not understand the details of climate science, but they know politics when they see it.

Apparently, some within the scientific community are beginning to awaken to this point -- many are still deeply in denial, which seems justly ironic somehow.

Even the CBC in Canada has noticed what's up:

An excellent summation and clarification of the issues here.

Lack of climate debate hobbles policy

2009-12-01T16:18:00.008-05:00

Not much I can add to this particular commentary by Nigel Lawson. As always he is succinct, reasonable and eminently sensible.

I am pleased to be posting this link here for wider consumption and for those people with open minds who wish to think and find blogs a good source for contrasting perspectives.

Sadly, my post here is unlikely to be read by most of my own departmental colleagues or the graduate students they instruct. The reaction to my earlier emails on this topic was at first stony silence, then an email from a senior graduate student with a re-assertion of the "science is settled, nothing to see here" circle the wagons variety to "correct" my emails and lastly a final "do not wish to engage in an extensive debate by email" dismissal by a senior colleague.

Well, I am suitably chastened. Naturally we don't wish to engage in extended debate and certainly not by email. Its not as if we are a university, concerned about higher education, free thought or the integrity of science. And the science is all settled anyways, so what is there to debate?

Well, lots actually. Four main issues arise:

that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory
they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous
they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and
they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work

Some mind find offense to any and all of these actions. Others will shrug and say it is a storm in a teacup. But the reason these actions are important and relevant is why they occurred:

Jones and his team began to produce work that contradicted the established picture in 1990 - and CRU was able to do so from both ends. By creating new temperature recreations, it could create a new account of history. By issuing a monthly gridded temperature set while making raw station data unavailable for inspection, it defined contemporary data. So CRU controlled two important narratives: the "then", and the "now".

Two ideas occur to me:

if the science is all so settled, why do we still need further research on this stuff? and
if the political support for the importance of climate change does indeed evaporate over the immediate future as is perfectly possible as part of the fall out of the Hadley "episode", who are the academics whose research grants will disappear?

Once science gets into bed with politics, its not possible to ignore the politics once it turns inconvenient.

Ostrich anyone?

out in the open

2009-11-26T14:54:00.005-05:00

Slowly but surely the mainstream media is being forced to cover the leaked emails from the Hadley CRU and the ramifications therein.

Some good examples from the National Post are here, here and here.

Its way too soon to see if the story has legs but the viral nature of its extensive coverage on the Internet suggests that it might. Why does it matter? It matters because the story has yet to emerge from underneath the allegations and smears that warmists have thrown up as an initial knee-jerk response. Steadily, however, the tide of comments is turning. The realists are not the loony posters any more. Rather they now represent the voice of quite reason and the shrillness is entirely within the die-hard alarmists going the seven stages of AGW death: shock, denial, bargaining, guilt, anger, depression and acceptance.

Somewhere around the guilt and anger phase, some of the key players will either resign or be encouraged to take early retirement -- right now shock and denial are common, with the last chance hope that the bargaining at Copenhagen will somehow yet pull a rabbit from out of the climate change looking glass.

The news that many world leaders will still attend the Copenhagen talks is seen a life raft for those wanting to jump from the AGW ship. Conversely, the Copenhagen talks can be viewed as the meeting where world leaders collude, sorry -- reach "consensus" -- on the new language to frame their social engineering efforts now that AGW has morphed into climate change and added the moniker "discredited".

Look back at the sixties Rachel Carson inspired framing for environmentalism: pollution became limits, became sustainability, became precautionary principle, became global warming, became climate change. With the events of the past few days, it is expedient to morph from climate change and re-frame the dominant environmental ideology as "stewardship". Same stuff, new packaging: recycle, re-use and reduce. Don't think of anything new, just re-use the existing ideas, recycle the existing constructs and reduce everything to a false moral dichotomy of good (conformity to the dogma) versus evil (non-conformists, individuals, realists, skeptics, deniers...people we don't like, won't let play with our ball).

Alarmism is the basic currency. Chicken Little is employed as chief media consultant and the framing of the problem is adjusted decade by decade but the underlying concepts and defining constructs are not measurably altered, extended nor deepened in sophistication. The ideology is enforced by dogma that the data do not substantiate and each phase of the indoctrination is revealed by the iconoclast who dares question the hegemony of axiomatic assertion: first Julian Simon, then Bjorn Lomborg and now, Steve McIntyre.

But then it only takes one person to identify the truth. Its up to the rest of us to wake up and recognize it and then be empowered to overcome the oppressive forces of authoritarianism in politics, in science and within civil society.

The real shock for many greens, is to discover that far from being the agents of change, they are the forces of oppression. Human beings are not a cancer on the planet. But authoritarianism, in whatever guise it takes, is a cancer on society.

The CRU of a sinking ship?

2009-11-25T00:42:00.007-05:00

The issue of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit continues to gain traction. The UEAs rather defensive press release further fuels speculation that the emails were leaked rather than hacked.

At the same time, analysis and explanation is appearing that clarifies the true nature of the malfeasance documented by the leaked files. One of the best concerns the conduct of the CRU in response to various Freedom of Information requests.

Clearly, this is an issue that is continue to play over both the short term and medium future. It appears to me, that continued stonewalling, deflection and denial are not going to be enough and that the various protagonists represent the CRU of a shrinking ship: AGW.

But a word of caution also is in order. It was Bertold Brecht who wrote:

The dog of war is dead. But do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.

And in that vain, the guys at Climate Resistance suggest viewing the CRU leak and the possible demise of AGW in a wider perspective.

The point is that any detected or projected rise in temperature does not speak for itself, no matter how sound the science behind it actually is. Any such data needs to be interpreted. That is to say that before you know what ’science says’, you have to know what has been asked of it.

In the logic of environmentalism, the sensitivity of climate to CO2 is held to be equivalent to the sensitivity of society to climate. But this, again, has no basis in science. Instead it is an entirely political, or ethical precept, centered on the concept of ‘balance’ and ‘harmony’ with ‘nature’. The function of ’science’, in what follows from environmental logic, is the search for ‘evidence’ of the status of this mythical balance. But, again, ‘evidence’ does not speak for itself, because, again, it requires interpretation. Anything that is not ‘normal’, implies ‘imbalanced’ in this way of thinking.

The mistake many sceptics have been making appears to be the mirror of the mistake that environmentalists have been making – they both assume that the argument for environmental politics emerges from environmental science, either correctly as a process that produces objectively sound analysis, or as an institution prone to corruption. It doesn’t.

to understand the ascendancy of environmental politics, it must be seen principally as a political phenomenon. The politics is prior to the science.

Environmentalism as an ideology does not rest on the certitude of its science. It co-opts and utilities whatever science is convenient to the political argument it is seeking to make at the moment. What drives environmentalism is not the science but the politics of the precautionary principle.

Ultimately, what will sink the AGW ship will not be a scandal about it's shoddy constituent science and practices. No the undoing of the AGW myth will be the desertion of its political cache. Politicos like to launch ships, not go down with them.

The Hadley CRU emails

2009-11-21T14:48:00.004-05:00

The major topic of a lot of blogs is obviously the release of the hacked/leaked emails from the Hadley CRU.

This summation seems accurate to me:

I have seen the files—not all of them, there are too many—and my early take doesn’t change the view I have already formed: climate models have no skill beyond about one year. The models predict warming, but the warming isn’t there, therefore the models are wrong. Why they are wrong is an interesting question, and worth investigating. Many of the emails responsibly take this tack. And they should.

I have not seen open acknowledgment that the premise that forms the models is false. That is, that it is possible, even with the observed small increase in atmospheric CO₂, that that gas has at best a marginal effect. As far as I can tell by my early reading, all the folks in those emails truly believe their models (it’s the observations they don’t love).

There is no conspiracy, as far as I can tell. A conspiracy would obtain if the participants knew their stated beliefs were false, yet the still espoused them with the goal of winning either money, or power, or control, or whatever. My early, and admittedly incomplete, judgment is that all of these people really are convinced that catastrophic warming is on the way and that it will be caused by mankind. Further, they believe it fervently.

Until the basic premise is questioned, alarmist climate change will persist as an ecomyth.

What these emails do is add credence to the claims that belief in global warming is just that: a belief. Moreover, it is a widely held belief amongst many committed scientists. But belief, even that of qualified scientists, is not science: it is ideology. The models of climate are not real, they are virtual. The real climate is the observations and empirical data, and those do not seemingly want to play nice with the warmist beliefs despite their many and varied attempts to have the data conform to their wishes. These emails reveal the extent to which the Team sought to enforce conformity of belief, a consensus on science that by its very definitions is predicated on skepticism and not conformity.

Perhaps this revelation will be enough for the questioning of AGW as an axiomatic construct to commence, which is about all climate realists and skeptics have been seeking.

biggest scandal of the day

2009-11-20T00:24:00.003-05:00

So here is a difficult one: which of the following represents the biggest scandal?

the complete lack of profile and media attention paid to the UN summit on food security?
the revelation that an extensive and highly embarrassing set of files and emails from the Hadley climate center has been hacked, leaked and publicly disclosed? or
that cheating in sport is acceptable if the "right" team ends up winning and qualifying for the planet's biggest sports event, the world cup of soccer?

Wow! Tough call.

Political indifference. Corruption. Arrogance. Absence of integrity.

Everywhere you go -- politics, science, sports -- the same ethics appear to be manifest.

Still, where's the harm? Its only the poor, the free thinkers and the Irish that have suffered. And what's the point of principles anyways?

Consensus on climate change

2009-11-15T10:40:00.006-05:00

The problem with politicizing science is the inevitability that the science will always be subservient to the politics.

The nail in the coffin of climate alarmists are polls such as this one from the UK.

The one trait all successful politicians share is the ability to accurately interpret polling data. In every jurisdiction, public opinion polls have turned and AGW has officially lost political traction.

The conference in Copenhagen will be more of a wake than a celebration and the only real question that remains is what issue will emerge as the newly framed disaster for widespread alarm, dogma and boondoggling to replace the politically defunct AGW.

Environmentalism suffers from the malaise of moral certitude. Consequently, political framing of environmental issues tends to be partisan and, in the case of AGW, has given rise to climate McCarthyism.

Here is good discussion on the continuing way environmental issues will be framed for political discussion:

The green movement isn’t really a movement at all. At best, it is a phenomenon of individuals whose only thing in common is their sense of disconnect and disorientation. At worst, it is a self-serving elitist club.

Even more alarming for environmentalists and scientists alike is the realization that the politicization of climate may completely backfire:

Indeed, science often has the quality of a quasi-religious dogma these days, especially in the arena of climate-change alarmism.
(which)...actually serves to undermine the pre-eminent authority of science today.
(reflecting)...the erosion of the line between science and moralising

Politics involves the manipulation of emotions for control and the expression of power over people. When science gets into bed with politics, it too becomes infused with manipulation and emotion, bias and moral certitude. At this point, science becomes just another ideological construct, subject to the same prevarications and predilections as other ideologies. In short, it becomes more used than useful.

The Double Standard About Bias in Journalism

2009-11-05T20:51:00.006-05:00

One of my favourite TV correspondents is John Stossel. I find his reporting is consistently forthright, provocative, challenging to axiomatic ideas and both well presented and well researched. In short, what good journalism ought to be.

Stossel has recently changed networks, switching from the politically accepted ABC to the unfashionable (read right of center) Fox. Here is his take on the situation. (Also see here).

Interesting. A journalist is upfront and candid about his politics and is vilified (of course, his are the wrong politics). On the contrary, an explicit declaration of ideology removes bias and clearly identifies the author's advocacy of that ideological perspective: bias is the manipulation of data or facts to align with an ideological perspective that remains implicit and surreptitious.

Keep these constructs in mind, especially when reading blogs and especially in the mainstream media's reporting of environmental issues. Ask yourself:

what is explicitly ideological and therefore advocacy?
and what is assumptive in its perspective, implicit in its tacit acceptance of axiomatic ideas and biased in its presentation of politically correct dogma?

Now, no ideology is immune to corruption or abuse. But Stossel is right when he says that only one perspective is labeled as biased and objectionable. Just ask the guys over at Superfreakonomics.

Besides, the UK is only one step away from making environmentalism the official state religion and everywhere else, it is the de facto alternative to the evils of capitalism: things like freedom, prosperity, wealth, a free press....thank goodness for George Orwell. Without him, we'd have to conjure up a new term for doublespeak (spin?) to assist people in differentiating advocacy from bias. Of course, Penn and Teller have a more succinct phrase.

Climatism

2009-10-22T11:51:00.000-04:00

Terrance Corcoran has another excellent article today discussing the emergence of "climatism" and the imposition of a stasist green state. He notes that:

Formal state corporatism is unmarketable as a political model, but green industrial statism looks like a winner.

The hype leading up to the Copenhagen debacle is beginning to ramp up. The trouble for warmists is that not only have they lost the general public's attention, they now have lost most politician's. Climatism signals the end of AGW as a real concern: it has done its job and fixed climate into the political lexicon as a dominant motive for government intervention, regulation and sibsidy. The Copenhagen conference will say very little new nor incisive about actual climate mitigation or adaptation. Rather, it will lay the justification for social engineering in economic policy, energy and resource management, all on the axiomatic imperative of a change in climate that is neither unprecedented nor alarming.

AGW is best thought of as a great global swindle based on inconvienient truths wherein real climate data have failed their climate audit. This leads to climate resistance by climate realists, who demand debate about junk science that is not evil, just wrong and fails to address the question, watts up with that?

green power is not sustainable

2009-10-01T09:06:00.000-04:00

One of the basic requirements of sustainability is that economics be integrated with environmental and social concerns. Ignoring basic economics of reality in the name of those concerns, both perceived and real, is not sustainable.

But in socialist imposition of government policy, all governing rules of common sense are ignored:

Under the new Ontario electric power and green energy plans, personally directed by the minister, everybody is protected and subsidized except consumers.
Billed as a North American first, the new Ontario green energy plan involves imposing hidden taxes on electricity consumers to fund an industrial strategy based on government directives, subsidies and trade protectionism — all for the benefit of a select collection of rent-seeking corporate interests. Today's the first day those corporate interests and local community activists can apply to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for new "Feed-in Tariffs" on new wind, solar, biomass and other renewable generating facilities.
While the going price of electricity at the wholesale level in Ontario is currently around 4 or 5 cents a kilowatt hour, the OPA is offering feed-in tariff contracts at between 45 and 80 cents to companies building new solar power generating facilities, 13.5 cents on land-based wind farms, 19 cents on off-shore wind farms, and between 10.4 and 19.5 cents on biogas projects.

As Corcoran points out, feed-in tariffs have not worked in Europe, nor is demand for electricity in the province of Ontario robust in the present climate: both economic and real.

But economic reality and social equity never prevent green environmentalist dogma from being embraced politically when it is deemed expedient by inept and morally bankrupt regimes.

no longer just broken, the hockey stick is finally dead

2009-09-29T16:21:00.007-04:00

I ended my last post by saying that data do not change your perspective, your perspective changes your data: a by-line for this blog. Some see the wisdom of this contention, others query it, or just think it odd, disagree and reject it.

The latest support for the insight of the contention is provided by the ongoing sadness of the hockey stick fraud that was further evidenced with the revelations of this week. They are outlined by Anthony here, with many accompanying links and enough comments and explanations that those with and without any background can fully appreciate the import of the latest audit findings. (Direct links to Steve's work are here and here).

In short, not only was the infamous hockey stick for global warming produced with faulty methods and suspect data, it is now clear that the data utilized then and subsequently were selectively employed to bias (falsify?) the results. This was done by a small coterie of experts consistent with the prevailing ideology and justification that AGW had to be sold as the public policy crisis of the present era.

These revelations follow hard on the embarrassing admission that data critical to the AGW myth are just not being withheld from scrutiny, they are in fact simply missing: maybe the dog ate them?

Will anyone from the scientific climate community actually step up and sanction the climate alarmists who sought to distort and deceive? It is not the character of academics to do their laundry in public but one has to hope that some strong repercussions at least in the court of public opinion are finally forthcoming to the "Team" for their shameless self-promotion at the expense of scientific integrity.

Follow up:

here is an excellent summation of the whole mess by Ross McKitrick, which concludes

The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws.

And here is another good summation from Jennifer's blog.

latest climate data

2009-09-24T16:18:00.003-04:00

Many people want to disregard the politics surrounding climate change and AGW. Despite comments about ideology and politicization of science, there are those who still want the whole mess to be just reduced to the facts: what do the data indicate?

Here is a site that presents the data, in historical context, in as neutral, objective a fashion as I have seen.

A recent example is this pdf which contains graphs of temperature, temperature change and CO2 from each of the four sources of temperature data, such as this one:

The author offers these comments:

Most climate models assume the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide CO2 to influence significantly upon global temperature. Thus, it is relevant to compare the different global temperature records with measurements of atmospheric CO2, as shown in the diagrams above. Any comparison, however, should not be made on a monthly or annual basis, but for a longer time period, as other effects (oceanographic, clouds, etc.) may well override the potential influence of CO2 on short time scales such as just a few years.
It is of cause equally inappropriate to present new meteorological record values, whether daily, monthly or annual, as support for the hypothesis ascribing high importance of atmospheric CO2 for global temperatures. Any such short-period meteorological record value may well be the result of other phenomena than atmospheric CO2.
What exactly defines the critical length of a relevant time period to consider for evaluating the alleged high importance of CO2 remains elusive, and is still a topic for debate. The critical period length must, however, be inversely proportional to the importance of CO2 on the global temperature, including feedback effects, such as assumed by most climate models.
After about 10 years of global temperature increase following global cooling 1940-1978, IPCC was established in 1988. Presumably, several scientists interested in climate then felt intuitively that their empirical and theoretical understanding of climate dynamics was sufficient to conclude about the importance of CO2 for global temperature. However, for obtaining public and political support for the CO2-hypothesis the 10 year warming period leading up to 1988 in all likelihood was important. Had the global temperature instead been decreasing, public support for the hypothesis would have been difficult to obtain. Adopting this approach as to critical time length, the varying relation (positive or negative) between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 has been indicated in the lower panels of the three diagrams above.

So the data show 40 years of cooling, followed by a 20 year period of temperature increase, followed by the present period of another 10 years of cooling.

In the midst of the warming phase the dogma for AGW was established and has been developed as the central platform for ideological environmentalism since then.

Science gives us measurement. Meaning is provided by us.

And what meaning is applied to those measurements varies with ideology, politics, values and agendas of those framing the public policy issues that arise from the meaning they apply to those data. The data may be neutral: the meaning they are given is never neutral nor free of ideology.

Data do not change your perspective. Your perspective changes your data.

Growth first, climate later

2009-09-23T13:11:00.002-04:00

So the major topic of the day is Obama's speech to the UN on climate (well, other than the dust storm that shut down Sydney -- no fear, someone somewhere will manage to link the two, causally: meanwhile see this).

Here is a particularly pithy but accurate take on events:

U.S. President Barack Obama more or less shuffled climate control policy off into the great dreamscape of unattainable plans and long range objectives.
Like equality for all and peace in our time, the world will have to wait for sweeping and binding climate policy.
On the urgency of climate policy, Mr. Obama used language with enough drag coefficient to stop an ocean liner, even one with the momentum and power of climate change.

Other comments of interest include this and this.

So how soon before the careerist advocates of ecomyths abandon the AGW meme and re-surface with another vehicle for their dogma, abandoning climate science to the scientific obscurity it had prior to its Warhol moment of fame?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

2009-09-17T13:02:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow marks first showing at my local Fine Arts cinema of the re-release of the classic Monty Python film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Python humour is deeply ingrained within the cohort that grew up watching all of the original episodes on English TV and re-enacting them all the following morning. To this day, members of that generation can recall with great accuracy their favourite skits: the cheese shop, the dead parrot, the upper-class twit race, the Bishop and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! We may falter at Shakespeare, our Latin and Greek is passed recall, but Python sketches, we have them!

What prompted this reminiscence, was the exchange over at the Roger Pielke Jr. site concerning the pathologies in climate science, the subsequent illustration of tribalism in climate politics and the continued confirmation that nobody expects the Spanish inquisition when they posit reasonable propositions only to be scorned.

Sadly, as Climate Audit continues to document, all climate science is not equal, nor do people practice what they preach.

Over at Climate Resistance, they discuss the status of climate porn and make this observation:

....climate change isn't something difficult for governments to cope with. It is actually convenient.
The political establishment's absorption of environmentalism allows it to substantially lower the standard by which it is measured, and gives authoritarianism a legitimising basis.
The looming, inevitable environmental crisis instructs the public to lower their expectations accordingly. It means that rather than finding a way through problems such as energy supply, water and travel infrastructure, and of course, raising expectations, politicians can turn the normal business of politics around, and redefine the problem as one of individual morality.
The statement that the public must use less electricity, must travel less, and must consume fewer resources is a statement that the public must expect less of politicians and politics, and behave themselves.
The failure of the establishment's collective imagination is what drives 'climate change ethics'.
The search for international agreements and legal frameworks to 'combat climate change' is a way of externalising what cannot legitimately be done domestically. Once in place, politicians can reasonably argue that punitive climate laws are a matter of international obligation; we are all bound by them, and cannot do anything about them. It defers politics and political accountibility to the strange, undemocratic, inaccessible space that exists between states.

It was Harold Wilson's England that gave rise to Monty Python's particular brand of satire. Hopefully the current state of political ineptness will serve as similar fodder for new comedy. Until then, there is this and, of course, the renewed quest for the Holy Grail.

Comment Sense

2009-08-31T09:04:00.001-04:00

Two excellent comments today from the National Post. Lots of journalism is for effect, much of it sensationalist. Much comment is political opinion and as laden with as much rhetoric as the best spin. But some, some, offers comment that reflects regular common sense: what I shall call comment sense.

The first is from Lawrence Solomon, continuing his series on "green" energy alternatives, a topic he has followed for longer than the topic has existed. His latest words of comment sense concern the future prospects of coal in a "de-carbonized" society:

We can be confident that coal use will keep on growing for decades to come, in line with official projections that show worldwide demand soon doubling —without coal for electricity production, most jurisdictions will be unable to keep the lights on.
We can also be confident that communities will successfully fend off many if not most of the carbon storage schemes that threaten them and their environments.
Finally, we can be confident that governments, after spending tens of billions on carbon storage schemes of dubious benefit, will conclude that the safest place to store today's relatively high levels of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, where it now resides.

The second snippet of comment sense is courtesy of Peter Foster, who discusses the ramifications of disputing the politically correct consensus on global warming: which in certain social circles is a dubious, if not heinous, sin:

We rely on authority for the vast majority of what we believe, but global warming theory does not rank as knowledge of the same order as whether Iceland exists or the moon is made of green cheese. My reason for believing in the existence of Iceland is that a conspiracy to conjure it out of geographical thin air is passing unlikely. But anthropogenic global warming is different. Far from being an established fact, it is a hypothesis whose allegedly disastrous consequences will occur sometime in the relatively distant future. It also comes attached to considerable psychic satisfactions and political advantages for its promoters.
It conforms to a broad view — long and fondly promoted by fans of Big Government — that capitalism is essentially short-sighted and greed-driven (just look at the subprime crisis!). This stance is not merely appealing to activist politicians and bureaucrats, it is pure gold for the vast and growing army of radical NGO environmental lobby groups, whose raison d'être — and fundraising — are closely related to the degree to which nature is seen to be "endangered." It is also appealing to rent seeking businessmen who see the profit potential in the vast array of controls and subsidies.
However, once you get people believing in "authority," then you're pretty much home and dry. Authority relieves us of the anxiety of uncertainty and the pain of thought. If the issue can also be portrayed as "moral" (millions of poor people dying from biblical droughts and floods!) then to question it is not merely cause for rejection but censure. Skeptics must be either crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal.

Comment sense reminds us that, despite the dogma peddled in the name of environmentalism, skepticism is scientific and consensus is political.

Pockets of sanity getting more prevalent

2009-08-25T10:18:00.001-04:00

One advantage of taking a hiatus from daily scrutiny of world events, environmental ideology and policy implementation, is that one realizes the virtue of patience. Eventually this too shall pass. The world may be largely an insane entity with only pockets of sanity, but eventually those pockets of sanity are revealed both to those who seek them, and by the excesses of those who prosper from the perpetuation of global insanity: common sense is humanity's saving grace in its quest for sustainability.

Some recent examples of emerging sanity:

What America has today is government by lawyers, ideologues, social engineers and rent seekers. Congress has nary a real engineer, and precious few members with any business background or ability to figure out basic cradle-to-grave energy, resource, economic and pollution equations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks natural gas is an "alternative to fossil fuels.
The sad truth is that global warming scare was nothing less than a hoax. Much like the "ice age" scares of the 70's, it was a ginned up "crisis" that socialists in the environmental movement used in an effort to destroy capitalism. Fortunately, the world is watching their theories fall apart due to the current cooling trend.
Three cheers for Jairam Ramesh! India at last has an environment minister who is willing and able to denounce the hypocrisy and immorality of the West in twisting the arms of India and China to curb their carbon emissions. He is right to make it clear that India has no intention of signing the new 'climate change' treaty in Copenhagen in December, which would put curbs on the carbon emissions of the Third World.
Those development economists and sundry celebrities, who on the one hand, want to see the end of world poverty and on the other, to curb Third World carbon emissions, should be ashamed of themselves for advocating the latter path which will make the former goal impossible to achieve.

In the coming months we are set to be inundated with a full-court press of hype ahead of the next climate conference in Copenhagen. One fact remains indisputable, what the developed economies of the world do or don't do no longer determines the fate of the world by themselves:

...each year the increase in Chinese CO2 emissions alone is greater than those produced by the entire British economy. On the fashionable assumption that climate change is entirely driven by CO2 emissions, the effect on global temperatures of Britain closing every fossil fuel power station would be much smaller than the statistical margin of error: in effect, zero.

So when you are exhorted to panic and run around like a chicken with its head cut off because the end of the world is nigh, as doubtless the rhetoric of the coming months will imply, resist the urge, reflect quietly and serenely on your world this past year or so and commit to doing your part to being a little happier, a little more tolerant and a little more involved: be empowered, be engaged but don't be dictated by dogma into irrelevance, poverty and serfdom.

Remember, "the greatest story teller ever" spun fairy tales from Denmark. Good place for a climate conference.