A Climate Of Bad Code

[MSimon]

*

http://www.ecnmag.com/Blogs/2010/01/new ... m-old.aspx

*

I will also be starting a new thread.

[Josh Cryer]

Luzr, you don't have to wage war, just put a fee at the ports on CO2. (We can even be devious about it and not do it to oil, etc.) China and India will have to adapt. Rather than having wind farms connected to nothing (sitting their idling), they'll be forced to build out their transmission line infrastructure like we are doing.



MSimon, the temperature record is abyssmal, no one has denied that. The point is that the accuracy of the measuring device will be so good that its sampling frequency destroys all other methods of measuring (even if you built a whole new land based measuring network and started from scratch). The ARGO buoys are no where near as good as CLARREO is proposed to be. 0.1K variability we're talking about here. Absolute radiance measurements of the planet.

And yeah, China owns a lot of our paper, but they can't cash in because it would hurt them, too. Renewables aren't that big of a hit.



seedload,

Notice a trend? Data (evidence) doesn't fit the theory. Data must be wrong. Theory must be right. Need new theory to explain 'fixing' the data to fit the original theory.

Einstein's equations don't fit the data. Guy takes a telescope out into the middle of no where during a total solar eclipse, takes a few pictures. Data fits the theory.

There is no global warming hot spot in the data, but it is in the models. Look at models, improve them the best you can (aerosols, oceanic variability, etc), look at the data, improve the data. Might be a hot spot. The data isn't that great, need more data.

MSimon, and the guy making these claims, are forming a conclusion, when no such thing can be made given the available information.

Note that I listed a half a dozen *individuals* many of whom have no axe to grind with AGW, but who use their own expertise in their own field to insert their own observations. These people must also be part of some global conspiracy if we are to presume that their data improvement methods are faulty.

When you have an unexpected result in science, that doesn't mean the result is wrong, and it usually leads to reinvestigation of what you are looking at, and it always leads to a refinement of the knowledge. What you are suggesting here is that we should not reinvestigate. That's a terrible way to go about it, in my opinion.

Real scientists do cede to peer review. As you said, Spencer changed his data.

And so did Gavin, Hansen, et al, with regards to GISS. See, that's why I am annoyed. People bash the peer review, but GISS is happy to take corrections. Spencer et al are happy to take corrections. That's a good thing.

So if GHCN or if NCDC really is messed up, really is broken, then someone could readily publish a correction. They should, in fact. Absolutely. But most objections, the vast majority, are misdirection. Disinformation.

Other scientists don't cede to peer review, defend papers no matter how bad they are, collude to modify the peer review process, and work to keep their data away from review.

There's no evidence of this to any extent that would or has corrupted the process. Scientists have little say in the peer review as Nature and Science have illustrated over the CRU incident.

Activist? If writing a book makes you an activist, then I guess that is right.

His website is explicitly designed to dumb down the evidence behind global warming and attribute it to natural variability. He is an activist as much as Gavin is, if we could call either of them that (I don't think so since their "activism" is limited to posting on a blog about their views, rather than actually going out like Hansen and lobbying).



About mitigation vs adaptation. I am only worried about sea level rise, otherwise I can agree with it all. I doubt that most of you big L libertarian types care very much about all of those hundreds of millions of people who would be displaced in the event of sea level rise, and would be hard pressed to do much about it. Of course, it is also a generational thing, and unless you're an extropian you probably don't expect to be around to have to deal with it anyway. (I do.)

MSimon, btw, sunlight in your eyes? That scowl makes you look like a tough guy!

[MSimon]

Josh,

I see you have another plan for punishing the poor (raising prices at WalMart) to fund your scheme for burning dollars.

But I see your essential problem. There is no method of thieving that doesn't hurt the poor.

You can steal from them direct - bad.

Or you can steal from the rich which means reduced job formation hurting them indirectly - also bad.

The only way out is to make the technologies you want profitable without subsidy.

If only there were more honest socialists. Marx was an honest socialist. He says if you want to build capital the way to do it is capitalism.

It has been my experience that there are (in the main) two kinds of socialist. The ignorant and the liars. Since I did not want to remain in the camp of the ignorant and I'm unwilling to lie I am no longer a socialist.

[Josh Cryer]

Nothing is competitive with fossil fuels without incentivization. So you can be against innovation or you can be for the magical free market, your choice.

Also, "raising prices at Wal-Mart" translates to "bringing jobs back to America." I'd hope you'd want that.

[Luzr]

Luzr, you don't have to wage war, just put a fee at the ports on CO2. (We can even be devious about it and not do it to oil, etc.) China and India will have to adapt. Rather than having wind farms connected to nothing (sitting their idling), they'll be forced to build out their transmission line infrastructure like we are doing.

You overestimate the future power of west over China and India.

At some point in the (near) future, the China <-> U.S. trade will become less important.

Suppose U.S. will decline in GDP and living standards below China, while holding all of that existing military power, because U.S. will implement carbon free and China will ignore it. Then add another bigger Katrina to the mix. Blame it on climate change while people are envious about China success. Do not you think such setup is pretty explosive?

[MSimon]

Also, "raising prices at Wal-Mart" translates to "bringing jobs back to America." I'd hope you'd want that

Any thing that makes the poor worse off in favor of the fat cats who own the factories is a good idea. Why just the other day I was applauding Al Gore's high carbon lifestyle. I thought it rather clever of him to be able to steal from the poor and get applauded as a paragon of virtue. </sarc>

[Josh Cryer]

Also, "raising prices at Wal-Mart" translates to "bringing jobs back to America." I'd hope you'd want that

Any thing that makes the poor worse off in favor of the fat cats who own the factories is a good idea. Why just the other day I was applauding Al Gore's high carbon lifestyle. I thought it rather clever of him to be able to steal from the poor and get applauded as a paragon of virtue. </sarc>

You definitely needed the sarcasm indicator. That could easily have been taken seriously.

[MSimon]

Also, "raising prices at Wal-Mart" translates to "bringing jobs back to America." I'd hope you'd want that

Any thing that makes the poor worse off in favor of the fat cats who own the factories is a good idea. Why just the other day I was applauding Al Gore's high carbon lifestyle. I thought it rather clever of him to be able to steal from the poor and get applauded as a paragon of virtue. </sarc>

You definitely needed the sarcasm indicator. That could easily have been taken seriously.

So your advocacy of stealing from the poor is sarcasm too?

Who knew?

[Josh Cryer]

So your advocacy of stealing from the poor is sarcasm too?

Who knew?

Where was that suggested? I thought I was explaining my desire not to support totalitarian states.

[MSimon]

So your advocacy of stealing from the poor is sarcasm too?

Who knew?

Where was that suggested? I thought I was explaining my desire not to support totalitarian states.

Carbon taxes. Yeah the plan is to rebate for direct carbon use. No plan to rebate the higher costs of all goods and services.

[Josh Cryer]

Carbon taxes. Yeah the plan is to rebate for direct carbon use. No plan to rebate the higher costs of all goods and services.

It would bring manufacturing back to the US since we are the only country in the world who is lowering emissions.

[MSimon]

Carbon taxes. Yeah the plan is to rebate for direct carbon use. No plan to rebate the higher costs of all goods and services.

It would bring manufacturing back to the US since we are the only country in the world who is lowering emissions.

And how long would that last?

I'm against any government program that raises costs without delivering REAL benefits that exceed the costs by at least 5X. And why 5X? Because cost/benefit analysis is rather uncertain.

BTW manufacturing as a % of the economy hasn't changed much in 50 years. So where did the jobs go? To machines. You can bring the manufacturing back. You will not bring back the jobs. For the same reason that jobs in agriculture are not coming back (baring civilizational collapse). In fact work is going on to mechanize fruit picking.

And more jobs (how many?) may not offset the higher price of goods in general. Especially for those who don't have jobs.

You have the Hayek problem. The government can't possibly have enough information to make one size fits all decisions.

You have read The Road to Serfdom haven't you?

[Josh Cryer]

Renewables would require millions of jobs, most of which are general labor jobs and not high level expertise. We don't yet have machines that can produce the stuff that China makes for us (they use cheap labor, machines can do labor even cheaper). So we'd wind up making those machines to produce the goods that our consumers love, and they'd need operators.

This will happen eventually, anyway, a carbon fee would just speed it up and spur internal innovation toward better technologies and a secure energy infrastructure that isn't dependent upon foreign countries which have zealots who don't mind blowing themselves up.

[MSimon]

Renewables would require millions of jobs, most of which are general labor jobs and not high level expertise. We don't yet have machines that can produce the stuff that China makes for us (they use cheap labor, machines can do labor even cheaper). So we'd wind up making those machines to produce the goods that our consumers love, and they'd need operators.

This will happen eventually, anyway, a carbon fee would just speed it up and spur internal innovation toward better technologies and a secure energy infrastructure that isn't dependent upon foreign countries which have zealots who don't mind blowing themselves up.

And at current costs every 1 million renewable jobs costs the economy 2 million jobs (according to Spain which killed its renewable program due to unaffordability).

But tell you what. We can get all the jobs we need. Just declare that excavation can't be done with machines or shovels. Spoons must be used.

A carbon fee would slow down the introduction of machines. The government would be sucking up the capital required.

The way to make more jobs is research into new ways to save money. The government does not do that well. But companies generally do not do it at all. For the most part. But research is low cost so even if done inefficiently the costs are not excessive.

[Josh Cryer]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... tales.html

Please read the link. I have heard of the 2 for 1 jobs argument but it is specious at best. The link illustrates it better than I could with a stuffy nose. :/