Friday, 25 November 2011


Up to no good - by Richard... Friday, November 25, 2011


What precisely went on we will never know, but you can be assured that when Sarkozy, Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti meet, in Strasbourg of all places, they are up to no good.

The headline outcome of the "Merkonti" meeting is that France and Germany have agreed to stop arguing in public over whether the ECB should do more to rescue the eurozone from a deepening sovereign debt crisis. They would also not seek to change its inflation-fighting mandate when they propose changes to EU treaties to strengthen economic governance. The pair also demonstrated their public backing for Monti.

With the Franco-German motor of integration now in good heart, Sarkozy said Paris and Berlin would circulate joint proposals before the 9 December European Council for treaty amendments. These will include proposals for more intrusive powers to enforce EU budget rules, including the right to take delinquent governments to the ECJ. These are now being hailed as a first step towards deeper fiscal union.

Meanwhile, Reuters has polled 20 leading economists, the majority of whom have predicted that the eurozone is unlikely to survive the crisis in its current form. A break-up is expected, with the survivors forming a "core" group that would exclude Greece.

Analysts believe that sense of crisis will in the end force dramatic action. "I think we are moving closer to a policy response probably, which could be either more aggressive ECB action or the idea of euro bonds could gain some traction," says Rainer Guntermann, strategist at Commerzbank.

Nor is the sentiment being left to the experts. Riot police clashed with workers at Greece's biggest power producer protesting against a new property tax, and Portuguese workers staged a 24-hour general strike.

Credit ratings agency Fitch downgraded Portugal's rating to junk status, saying a deepening recession made it "much more challenging" for the government to cut the budget deficit, highlighting a vicious circle facing Europe's debtors.

German bonds fell to their lowest level in nearly a month after Wednesday's auction, in which the German debt agency found no buyers for half of a 6 billion euro 10-year bond offering at a record low 2.0 percent interest rate.

Outside the eurozone, a top British financial regulator said British banks should make contingency plans for a potentially disorderly break-up of the currency area, or the exit of some countries, as the sovereign debt crisis rages on.

"Good risk management means planning for unlikely but severe scenarios and this means that we must not ignore the prospect of a disorderly departure of some countries from the eurozone," Andrew Bailey, deputy head of the Prudential Business Unit at the UK's Financial Services Authority, told a conference.

And so we dig in for the long haul. Nothing fundamental changes, and it is still "when", not "if", although trench warfare seems the order of the day – even if Blitzkreig can never be ruled out.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

More skeptics - by Richard... Thursday, November 24, 2011

Says WUWT, Climategate 2.0 email 4894.txt shows just what Alex Kirby of BBC thinks of climate skeptics as he conveys it to Dr. Phil Jones. Clearly, there is an incestuous relationship between climate science and the BBC - of which more from Biased BBC.

Meanwhile, I've been continuing my gentle graze around the e-mails, looking at references toclimate skeptics. There are no smoking guns, or earth-shattering discoveries (yet), but the impression is reinforced of a climate science community feeling itself under pressure, looking over its shoulders all the way at what the skeptics are doing.

Here is the latest sample:
0636 Mike Hulme to "fast trackers". 21 April 1999

"If you believe the economic skeptics then any climate policy will have a detrimental effect on world production …"

0697 Michael E. Mann to Keith Briffa and others. 23 September 1999

"So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates".

0716 Michael E. Mann to Tom Crowley and Phil Jones, re . Soon & Baliunas. 12 March 2003

"With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP, here appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.

Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged".

0717 Phil Jones to Michael E Mann. 17 September 1998

The modelling community leaders are probably about as skeptical about our paleo-reconstructions as we are of their sulphate aerosol parameterizations, flux corrections (or more worrying, supposed lack thereof in some cases!), and handling of the oh-so-important tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere interface ... So my personal philosophy is that more than one side here can benefit from extending the olive branch, and there are a few individuals in the modeling community who could benefit from slowing down on the stone throwing from their fragile glass tower :)

0728 Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones. 27 August 2009

There were indeed a number of Skeptics, but also a lot of people across the disciplines eager for information, and of course impressed by IPCC. Were no one like me there to keep going after the Skeptics and talking to the others in the in between times, they would, it seems to me, be more likely to think there is something serious about the opposition of the Skeptics - but the way it came off, with me going after Zichichi and his skepticism, I think was helpful to the others.

0800 Phil Jones to Chris Folland. 2 January 2008

Could add a website in the press release that appears on the Met Office site to a web site where the earlier forecasts might be accessible? This isn't essential - it is just that the skeptics won't believe your 0.07 accuracy number. If a page was mentioned it might shut them up - unlikely I know!

0900 Jonathan Overpeck to Darrell Kaufman, re your Science manuscript. 28 May 2009

This paper is going to get the attention of the skeptics and they are going to get all the data and work hard to show were we messed up. We don't want this - especially you, since it could take way more of your time than you'd like, and it'll look bad.

0914 Shaopeng Huang to Phil Jones. 3 March 2000

I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use changes, principally in the eastern US, which could be making your North American series too cool. I realise you've taken great care with the selection, but this is a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide us all about the course of change over the last millennium.

0952 David Rind to Stefan Rahmstorf. 20 July 2005

There is a quantum difference between the fundamental approaches - it is not a continuum, in which there are no real differences, everything is simply a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as truth - that's the argument that greenhouse skeptics use to try to make science go away.

1071 Ben Santer to Phil Jones. 7 September 2007

Skeptics, deniers are talking things up a lot lately - misinterpreting as usual and accepting what some papers say too readily.
The last comment is so revealing. It is the first reference to "deniers", and it is obvious that to be one is to "misinterpret". No quarter can be given, no good faith can be assumed. That is what "deniers" do.

COMMENT: "CLIMATEGATE II" THREAD

Print ready

No tears here - by Richard...


It is quite interesting how, in reporting such news, the newspaper goes above and beyond the call of duty in taking the establishment line.

People who might otherwise be described as freedom fighters, or some such, get the label "vandals", and the effect of their blows against the kleptocratic council is said to "lead to higher permit charges and increased pay and display parking costs for residents and visitors".

In short, the paper is a creature of the establishment – an upholder of the status quo. Never mind that councils have massively increased their charges to pay themselves huge executive salaries and pensions, and are ripping the hearts out of town centres as they steal from motorists to pay for their lifestyles.

Never mind that local authorities have outstripped any democratic legitimacy they ever had, and have long ceased to be responsive to the needs and wishes of their taxpayers. The newspaper isn't interested in that. Any action against what amounts to official theft is automatically baaaaaad.

And needless to say, Carl Maynard, the county council's economy, transport and environment spokesman, describes it as a "mindless crime". What he needs to realise it that it is very far from mindless – the old joke applies … we mind very much.

Interestingly, though, the tone of the newspaper report is quite out of tune with the comments, which are largely supportive of the "vandals". There is a greater recognition out in the community that councils are pushing charge levels to the limits and many are now unjustified.


A reader tells me that it is quite possible that the location is not a coincidence. The locals have a strong tradition of ignoring the council. Lewes' annual bonfire party, which attracts tens of thousands of tourists, is not sanctioned by or run by the local council and, in fact, the council have tried to end it on a number of occasions, using 'elf and safety' claims to try to cancel the whole shebang.

The locals, though, are a bloody-minded lot, and have told the council to shove it and put on a phenomenal show each year. This year there were six bonfire groups, all of whom processed through the town and then out to their chosen spot where they burned their effigies (including two of Cameron, which was extremely cheering).

Literally everything about the event is chosen to make the modern HSE quail and wag its finger in outrage - flaming torches in the streets, loud bangs all night, booze everywhere despite a council order banning drinking on the streets which nobody obeyed - even the pubs were open. It was amazingly good-natured, the locals were brilliant and the number of injuries and arrests was minimal.


When the last procession headed for its chosen burning site at 10:30pm, my reader tells me he was headed to the top of the town and watched the artillery kick off. It was a truly epic sight - fireworks roaring and exploding from every corner of the town and for nearly an hour the sky was bright enough to read by. His ears were still ringing the next morning, and there was a haze of bonfire smoke overhead until late morning.

He says he drove through the town at 10am the next day and, despite the fact that 70,000 people had descended on this little town overnight, the streets and pavements were immaculate. The locals clean it all up, by hand, starting around 5am. Most of them are still "off their tits", of course, but they did a far better job of cleaning the town than the council-hired contractors do.

The council seems to hate the event because it shows to people that they don't actually need the council at all. It's a lesson my reader says he took back with me and he's trying to think of the best way to apply it locally.

Certainly, the same spirit seems to have found an application in sending a message to the council. Officials (and the police, for that matter) may huff and puff, but the true thieves in our communities have become those self-same officials, helping themselves to the public purse, for very little in return. One would like to think they are capable of understanding the message they are being sent, before the need to repeat it becomes widespread.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Less than impressed - by Richard...


Autonomous Mind picks up what he calls "posturing" in the Daily Mail over the British contribution to the EU, it having now reached £18.5 billion or £50 million a day.

Interestingly, this is almost one tenth of the £180 billion British taxpayers "contribute" to local government (in all its forms and appearances), adding £500 million a day to our personal costs. We see no headlines on this though, despite the spending having quadrupled in real terms since 1972.

What irritates AM so much though is that this is indeed posturing by the newspaper. It is no opposed in principle to our membership of the EU, and does not campaign for our withdrawal. Therefore, it is not opposed in principle to paying money to the EU – the question is how much, an amount it does not disclose.

Skirting past the Farage boilerplate, where we are told that: "We are paying more than ever before for our EU membership and are getting less in return" (rather like local government), the Mail then tells us that the figures are likely to strengthen the hand of Tory Eurosceptics who argue that Britain is getting a raw deal from the EU.

Why that is the case also is not specified, as "Tory Eurosceptics" (as opposed to the real thing) do not in the main want to leave the EU, and therefore, would accept some degree of membership payments. As with the Mail though, they do not specify how much.

But then this is all about propaganda, and the message is that, if we were not spending £50 million a day on the EU, we could spend it on many other things, from more and better schools, to debt reduction – except that we could not.

Here, for instance, no one supposes that, should we leave the EU, farming subsidies paid into the EU and returned to us would automatically cease. Nor indeed would the huge amounts paid into the EU's research budget and then paid to British academic institutions. Arguably, we would continue to pay as much, if more, into both those accounts - and many others.

By the time you have added up paying for policies that we have repatriated, rather than abolished (such as the fisheries policy), and also fees to international organisations that are at present covered by our EU subscription, the amount of money saved from not paying the EU would be minimal – a small fraction of the £18.5 billion.

The greater saving would, in fact, come from repeal of the torrent of EU legislation, and the development of different and more economic ways of regulating society. Such costs run to £120 billion or more, annually, and it is there where we could see a real renaissance in commercial activity, once liberated from this burden.

However, no political party (including UKIP) , nor newspaper, has any real idea of how to re-order the regulatory burden and, like as not, even if we did leave the EU, much of the burden would remain, or even increase – as have the now massive payments we make to local government.

Thus we find ourselves in the position of being enjoined to chase illusory savings, while ignoring far greater savings which could accrue as a result of our leaving the EU, but only if we had a sensible and far-reaching plan for re-ordering how we run society.

That unreality is probably the reason why the EU budget contributions issue has never gained any real political traction. People may tut-tut at the headline figure, but the polemics do not represent anything real. A more serious and considered case for savings needs to be made.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Going nowhere - by Richard...

Jeremy Warner tells you why The Boy isn't going to get very far with his quest for repatriating powers.

You could have read a better analysis at the end of last month. But we come to the same general conclusion. Then Boy ain't going nowhere. However, one assumes that, deep within the bowels of CCHQ, someone believes his stance is going to confer electoral advantage. But that ain't going nowhere neither.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

As they see us - by Richard...



Climate skeptics as seen from the viewpoint of the warmist community - a small selection of references:
0034 Phil Jones to Thomas C Peterson. 18 September 2009

"Skeptics will use anything to undermine things".

0112 Michael E. Mann to Gavin Schmidt and others. 5 February 2005

Sea level: Your correspondent does not disagree with my statement that the IPCC has revised its upper-bound estimate of sea level rise to 17 inches (0.43m). He says, however, that this upper bound is based on the A1 scenario, by which world population will peak in mid-century at ~9bn and fall thereafter. So was the 2001 report's upper bound of 0.88m.

I was correctly comparing like for like. The Sunday Telegraph, which reported these figures, has been told that the revisions arise from "better data" now available to the IPCC, supporting skeptics' conclusions that the IPCC's figures are little better than exaggerated guesses. Morner (2004) concludes firmly that there is little evidence for sea level rising any faster now than it has in geologically-recent times.

0194 Phil Jones to Kevin Trenberth. 12 July 2005

"Here's some thoughts on the captions for the maps. I think we need this sort of detail to keep skeptics happy".

0217 Phil Jones to Tom Wigley. 3 December 2008

"People shouldn't be looking at individual months, but the skeptics do to keep saying that there has been no warming since 1998. To counter this you just have to look at the average versus the 2001 to 2008 average".

0239 Michael E. Mann to Malcolm Hughes and others. 16 October 2003

"Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking somebody who does possess these characteristics - preferably somebody outside the handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional climate-change skeptics - to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could poll a number of such people".

0248 Narasimha D. Rao to Stephen H Schneider on "BBC U-turn on climate". 14 October 2009

"You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views".

0323 Phil Jones to David Wuertz and Russell Vose. 15 September 2004

"One of you gave Dave Easterling some plots for the SH, NH, globe and also for Australia. Russ had some text. If this can be expanded on and completed/submitted it can be referred to by IPCC - and maybe keep the skeptics quiet for a few days".

0371 Keith Briffa to Michael E. Mann and Ed Cook. 12 April 2002

"I have sought to clarify in my letter to Science, and in my messages to you all, and the comparison plot I provided), I believe it is either sloppy or disingenuous reasoning to argue that this is the case. The fact that this sloppiness also readily serves the interests of the skeptics is quite unfortunate, but it is indeed beside the point!

It would probably also be helpful for me to point out, without naming names, that many of our most prominent colleagues in the climate research community, as well government funding agency representatives, have personally contacted me over the past few weeks to express their dismay at the way they believe this study was spun".

0390 Phil Jones to Michael E. Mann. 1 May 2007

"Unsurprisingly the skeptics aren't keen on Ch 6! I think it is a pretty good assessment, as is Ch 3 and the rest of the report. They will likely try the argument that the CLAs and LAs have assessed their own work. If they do this, I'll leave this to Susan to respond to".

0438 Phil Jones to various re raw data. 9 September 2007

What I would do, in response to the comment, is to suggest that the skeptics derive their own gridded temperature data. They can use the GISS data, and then assess which stations they want to use etc. They don't want to do this, as it is lots of hard work, and it is much easier to criticize.

0552 Phil Jones to Chris Folland. 6 January 2009

The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably. It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the skeptics. They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability!

0601 Phil Jones to David Jones. 6 September 2007

Hi David, Shoni tells me you're having to respond to some skeptics. I commiserate with you!

David Jones to Phil Jones. 7 Spetember 2007

Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent.

0614 Phil Jones to Kevin Trenberth and others. 20 December 2004

As climatologists we are often changing base periods and have done for years. I remember getting a number of comments when I changed … If we go to a more recent one the anomalies will seem less warm - I know this makes no sense scientifically, but it gives the skeptics something to go on about! If we do the simple way, they will say we aren't doing it properly.
One gets the impression they are partly fearful, partly resentful and partly dismissive. Whatever else, they don't like it up 'em.

COMMENT "CLIMATEGATE II" THREAD

Print ready

Oh dear! - by Richard... Wednesday, November 23, 2011

0149 From John Davies to Phil Jones, Wed 4 July 2007.

On: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES IN THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS.

The main point to be borne in mind is that the world faces a high chance of very large climate changes in a very short space of time which we know about but of which we are nevertheless largely unaware. This is creeping up on us unawares because of the relative climate stability of the last ten years.

Should this period of climate stability continue then the sceptics will publicise it and insist that global warming is a myth and many politicians and much of the public will believe them. Success for the sceptics will mean that no action will be taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

This possibility can be minimised if the defenders of the global climate inform the world of the climate stability before the sceptics jump in and if climate campaigners accurately explain the dangerous future facing humanity and the world.

It will be extremely difficult to make people aware of the danger we face if this climate stability goes on much longer. In military terms this situation represents a classic ambush.

COMMENT: "CLIMATEGATE II" THREAD

Print ready

Children at work? - by Richard...

David Cameron says parents should take children to work during strikes. The source also indicated that No. 10 staff could be among those who were able to bring their children to work. She said: "Downing Street would be one of the places where if you want to bring your children, that could be arranged".

Forgive me, but I thought it already was.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The dynamics of power - by Richard...


Poorly reported yesterday, and then best in the Irish Times, we saw Angela Merkel argue that the EU should be given powers to strike out national budgets that do not meet eurozone debt rules.

This came on the back of her ruling out the pooling of eurozone debt as a solution to crisis, with her insisting that there is now "no way around" a treaty change which will to allow the EU commission oversight of national budgets.

Sure enough, on cue today, Reuters reports that the EU has proposed "intrusive control of eurozone budgets", which we see detailed in its new action plan for growth, governance and stability. The core to this is a proposed Regulation which would strengthening surveillance of budgetary policies in euro area.

Member States would require these countries to present their draft budgets at the same time each year and give the Commission the right to assess and, if necessary, issue an opinion on them.

The Commission could then "request" that these drafts be revised, should it consider them to be seriously non-compliant with the policy obligations laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact.

Treaty change comes in with the commission being able to decide whether a Member State experiencing severe difficulties with regard to its financial stability should be subject to enhanced surveillance.

The Council would be able to issue a recommendation to such Member States to request financial assistance, whereupon "stability bonds" could be issued by the EU, making the Commission (via the ECB, one assumes) the lender of last resort.

That this is the final stage of an EU take over cannot be emphasised strongly enough. A country which cannot issue its own budget, where its financial decisions of subject to an over-ride by a supreme power, is no longer an independent country.

Not for nothing did we, in our discussion of increasing the power of citizens over their governments, recommend an annual referendum on the budget – on the premise that he who controls the budget controls the government.

And here we are, while the British government is occupying itself with low-level repatriation of power – on issues which are far from mainstream – we see the EU go for the jugular, demonstrating an understanding of the dynamics of power that we do not see in our own politicians.

But, if the commission gains this power – even if just over eurozone countries – it is game over for those member states as independent nations. For however long it takes for the EU to collapse, those members will be de facto and de jure subordinates of Brussels.

This is economic governance writ large. The end game is being played out.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Ignorance is bliss? - by Richard...


An intriguing report finds its way into the Daily Express, which purports to show that the more complicated an issue appears, the less we want to know about it – even when we really should try to understand it.

This is a report in the current edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which suggests that most people "are happier to trust government to get on tackling the big issues of the economy or global warming than try to understand heavyweight issues themselves".

The study of more than 500 adults found those hit hardest by the recession were most likely to avoid negative information about it even if they need it the most, making that North African river an extremely popular watercourse.

When an issue affecting someone appears complex, people feel more helpless and this in turn increases their dependency on others – such as government – to deal with it. Researcher Aaron Kay adds: "This is despite the fact that one should have less trust in someone to effectively manage something that is more complex".

However, there is indubitably more to this than meets the eye. Empirical evidence would suggest that, of the many public policy issues with which we have to deal, many more are marked out (by default more than act) as being "complex" by the media, and either avoided or treated sketchily on a "Janet and John" level.

Certainly, this is very evidently the case when one compares the output of WWII newspapers – and particularly the tabloids such as The Daily Mirror - with contemporary journals. In style, content, depth and the challenge presented, I would put the Mirror of 1940 a cut above either The Times or (especially) the Failygraph.

Thus, while, according to this study, people retreat from complex issues (and have always done so), with newspapers having largely abandoned their adult education role, I would assert that people are less equipped than ever before to deal with public policy issues and are thus more inclined to treat them as "complicated".

There will be more to it than this, but the findings of this survey – and the issue in general – has profound implications if we are seeking functional democracy as a mechanism of government. Education, it its widest possible sense, would seem to be an essential part of the process.

Posted by Britannia Radio at 07:47