How not to make a climate photo op

You have to wonder- what were these guys thinking? The only media visual they could have chosen that would send a worse message of forecast certainty was a dart board…or maybe something else?

MIT’s “wheel of climate” – image courtesy Donna Coveney/MITprinn-roulette-4

 

From Popular Science:

The Greenhouse Gamble: Ronald Prinn, director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, and his group have revised their model that shows how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century without substantial policy change. Standing with the group’s “roulette wheel” are, from left to right, Mort Webster, professor in the Engineering Systems Division; Adam Schlosser, principal research scientist at the Center for Global Change Science; Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry; and Sergey Paltsev, principal research scientist, MIT Energy Initiative.

Popular Science writes:

It’s time to call your bookie, because the line on global warming is in. A new paper from MIT breaks down the odds of different outcomes from global warming, based on whether governments take action now or later. And if you’re taking that action, bet on “government getting involved” to beat the spread, as last week an important climate change bill made it out committee in the House of Representatives.

The bill, named the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would institute a cap-and-trade program, and reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent over fifteen years. The plan also calls for increased research into alternative energy, and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause.

See the compete article here

With that kind of cash payout, and since an MIT odds calculating machine is involved in making the modeling forecasts over 400 model runs, maybe this would be a more appropriate prop for the MIT photo op:

MIT_climate_bandit

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Glug

400 model runs? Is that to resolve the possible outcomes as a result of natural variability and the various possible economic scenarios?
I guess it would be difficult to resolve of all those possibilities with 1 single model run, right?

Pamela Gray

When it comes to congress digging into my dwindling pocket book for more expensive energy, taxes, price of consumer goods, etc, calling my bookie for odds on weather pattern variation will not endear me to said congresspersons doing the pocket picking. Bad advertising campaign.

MC

MIT’s Climate Bandit? Very clever. Very clever.
Watt’s. I have never met you, seen you, spoken to you. Only read you. If the AGW people get the feeling I do about how sharp you really are, they have got to have a case of the heartburn coming on. You have really done it here. You’re making fun of the Massechusetts INSTITUTE of Technology. These guys are supposed to be some of the leading intelectuals in the US. After a post like this, they all look like a buch of stooges.
This blog just keeps getting better and better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mkurbo

Where can one bet on the No Pass Line ?

This post shows what in the post “MIT: Global Warming of 7°C ‘Could Kill Billions This Century’” was missing. Actual photo in MIT´s Roulette Magazine.
I don´t know if you say it like this, but I would translate it as:
“One picture worths a million words”
This is “Global Warming” (“Global Gambling”?)

Not Sure

WTH is “Global Change Science”?

Pamela Gray

This reminds me of that folded 4-part paper game that purports to predict, for example, who you will kiss next. I hated that game. When I was in the 5th grade I didn’t know how to kiss (which excludes there being a “next” in the game when I played it) so when someone enticed me to play the game, I always ended up hitting someone.

The Roulette original:
You can get here the PDF:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

actuator

Massive Intellectual Turnabout. The question is, would you trust these guys to run a pre-kindergarten science class? Perhaps that’s a little harsh. Third grade?

Keith Minto

Images as well as many other things can be manipulated…………
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/the-mit-greenhouse-gamble-small31.jpg

Greg Cavanagh

I don’t understand this “…and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause”.
What’s the point of raising the cost of energy, and then subsidising the consumers for the rising cost of energy?

Bob Wood

Even though these “scientists” are playing roulette with their reputation, the economy, which is having enough trouble as it is, will suffer the most when it is shoved over the edge by their wild claims.

Pamela Gray (19:27:41) :
This reminds me of that folded 4-part paper game that purports to predict, for example, who you will kiss next

I remember that game: You opened it two ways: One Red the other Blue, one the Devil the other Heaven….

Graeme Rodaughan

The plan also calls for increased research into alternative energy, and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause.
So what will the US Govt do to get the $750B.
(a) Borrow the funds and have the american taxpayer pay it back with interest.
(b) Raise taxes and have the american taxpayer pay for it now.
(c) Print more money and devalue the US Dollar.
(d) all of the above.

Randall

What terrible body language. Whoever composed this photograph did a poor job; from the stilted poses, jacket tail flopping on the table and unfriendly faces (I’d wager two are giving us but conceiling their middle fingers).
In any case, I doubt that they would bet their own money.

Graeme Rodaughan

Greg Cavanagh (19:43:58) :
I don’t understand this “…and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause”.
What’s the point of raising the cost of energy, and then subsidising the consumers for the rising cost of energy?

Your assuming that the proponents of these schemes are rational actors – it’s either
(a) a false assumption that they are rational, or
(b) They are rational – however their actual goals are not what they say they are.

This is win-win for them. With the near absolute assurance of substantial policy changes their warning scenarios are thus averted.
The cock crows and takes credit for the sunrise,

MC: You’re making fun of the Massechusetts INSTITUTE of Technology
I think WUWT did not do anything but presenting facts, as always.
Really the MIT people did it to themselves

Walt Stone

Which IPCC GCM gave them the +7degF number as a statistical possibility?

Frank K.

Beyond the millions that taxpayers are being asked to pay for this junk research, I am truly amazed at the press releases these people put out. Almost puts the Catlin expedition to shame. How many articles does this now make for this particular research project? Jeez – Enough already!

stumpy

At last they have developed a physical model for projecting climate change that is capable of capturing the chaotic unpredictable nature of the earths climate. All they need to do is add some more options… ice age, cooling of various degrees maybe and they would have it nailed. Now all they need to do it spin it 400 times and then take the mean of the results as their projection and assign it >90% confidence.
Heres to more accurate projections in the future!

Adam from Kansas

Oh the Earth will warm alright, providing the sun+the oceans even let it warm that much. Everyone thought the minimum was over when the solar flux started climbing, but now it crashed down to being below 70 again, it will be interesting to see how these new solar developments affects SST’s and thus temps.

Don Shaw

“Greg Cavanagh (19:43:58) :
I don’t understand this “…and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause”.
What’s the point of raising the cost of energy, and then subsidising the consumers for the rising cost of energy?”
Greg,
I have not actually heard this on the NEWS, but I would bet that this is another scheme to redistribute the wealth. Those that pay the tax will not likely get any return, but the “poor” will receive a big check. There will be a sliding scale so that those with higher incomes will get less or nothing back.
It’s like the stimulus where those earning over a certain amount will get nothing.

rbateman

The $750 B in subsidies is to get you a free pass the 1st year. After that, you pay, and pay, and pay……
Notice the “help” offset. Meaning it’s going to cost you a lot more than the subsidy will pay out the 1st and only year of subsidy.
It’s like a 3 card molly game. They let you win the 1st time, then they take your money….all of it.

3x2

Given the track record of modelling complex systems perhaps it is time to give “wheel of fortune” more consideration.
“Is this housing boom going to continue forever and make my bank very rich?”
“What number should I assign to the box marked climate sensitivity?”
“Where is all that projected heat hiding?”

rbateman

If you take the Subsidy money to “help offset”, you in effect have signed the contract.
Don’t do it. It reads like an ARM mortgage.

SteveSadlov

Why … It’s the Big Spin!

markinaustin

how would one respond to this:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf
the implication by the one who sent it to me was that the new report about weather stations is old news and not an issue.

Mike Bryant

Greg
“What’s the point of raising the cost of energy, and then subsidising the consumers for the rising cost of energy?”
How else do they get there cut???

David Ball

Only the poor are going to suffer. All based on a false premise. I know a few business execs and they are wringing their hands in anticipation of the green revolution. A false economy built on a fraudulent idea. None of that money will ever get to who needs it. It will only go to those who are already wealthy, and even more pollution will be created, for they will have been forgiven their indulgences. Painful to watch as we do this to ourselves.

Jimmy Haigh

My immediate thought here was: “What! Only one guy in a suit!”
The other three are not obviously worried about loosing their jobs…

Chris Novatny

What they won’t show us that right after the picture was taken, they played rock, paper, scissors.
Winner gets to put on a blind-fold, take the magic “Climate Change” dart out of it’s glass case and blindly throw it at the spinning Wheel ‘O Climate.
At that point they will publish their “findings”.

timetochooseagain

I find the very use of “without policy” in this paper offensive. The message sent is that we are screwed unless the government steps in to save us. Not likely. There is nothing the government does as well as the private sector-except crew up and oppress people.
At the very least this is advocacy. But none of the results even make sense! WTF?!?

hereticfringe

Ahhhh!!! The four stooges!
They used the wrong kind of Roullette… they need to play the Russian variant.

Mike Bryant

I think they may have convinced more people if they had Vanna turning the letters.

F. Ross

Wheel of Misfortune
Vanna White probably has more sense in her left big toe than all the MIT team put together.

AnonyMoose

They certainly haven’t mastered Gore’s grim cheerfulness while pretending to know something.

Michael

What is the tiny blue strip between greater than 7 degrees and 3-4 degrees of heating? Is it the fudge factor ‘no change or even cooling’ probability so they can later say “we never said it was a 100% certainty” 🙂
Regards
Michael
BTW the photographer needs to clean off some of that carbon pollution on her camera sensor

crosspatch

“he only media visual they could have chosen that would send a worse message of forecast certainty was a dart board”
Wheel, dart board, whats the difference?
But notice that the minimum change in there is 3-4 degrees. The most arrogant thing about it is the implication that without US policy, the Earth will warm 6 to 7 degrees, which is just plain idiotic. US emissions have been practically flat for a long time. There isn’t anything we can do with our policy decisions that will reduce increases in global emissions short of a massive nuclear power program. Even that would probably have no measurable impact. The rate of increase in emissions from other countries will swamp any reductions we make.

Mike Bryant

I think that we should take our choice of one of the characters above and suggest a “speech balloon” or a “thought balloon”.
Might be fun.

rbateman

David Ball (20:22:32) :
I lovingly call it (Cap & Trade) Tax & Spill.
If you have noticed who was calling for the US to shut down all of it’s coal-fired plants, that should give you an idea of the source of the lobbying effort. It’s not US interests who are doing this, but it’s the US who will get set back 10 yrs in the ensuing economic melee.
Read between the lines on the MIT message.
I think I get what they are really saying in that photo op.

Walter Cronanty

Re: the $750,000,000 from cap and trade. That figure [or close] has been in Obama’s budget since first proposed. It is wealth redistribution. Those that are productive get fleeced – approximately 46% of the American “taxpayers” pay no federal income tax now. Those folks will get the lion’s share of the $750m.

Mike Bryant

Guy#1… OK… this is just stupid.
Guy#2… Imagine that my fingers here on the table are some guy that’s about to be incinerated!!
Guy#3… (thought balloon) I’m failing all three of these guys…
Guy#4… Hehehe, it’s almost break time…

Squidly

Greg Cavanagh (19:43:58) :
I don’t understand this “…and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause”.
What’s the point of raising the cost of energy, and then subsidising the consumers for the rising cost of energy?

AH HA! … but that is the whole idea. Subsidize to get you to buy into this garbage, then decrease the subsidies until they are eliminated. Once they get the “go ahead” and implement, do you really believe the subsidies will stay in place? Where would the money come from? My friend, you will never see the subsidy! Its a complete smoke screen.

Andy

hi, i was wondering if there was an existing or planned ‘coalition of the intelligent’…
the ‘Dr Jekyll’ to the IPCC’s ‘Mr Hyde’……..how far are we from some sort of focused
effort against the ‘crusade of the ridiculous’ ‘CO2 as pollutant’ charade that is the IPCC?

Evan Jones

Fools.

Evan Jones

If the AGW people get the feeling I do about how sharp you really are, they have got to have a case of the heartburn coming on.
He is. They have. They do.
(Wait for it.)

Evan Jones

You can tell by the lack of ad arguendum.

hereticfringe (20:39:45) :
Ahhhh!!! The four stooges!
They used the wrong kind of Roullette… they need to play the Russian variant.

With four of the six chambers loaded, and then each has to play 400 times. If they did not decorate the wall behind them then you might suggest that they are on to something with their models.

RhudsonL

at least photo shop in some minorities so we don’t look environmentally racist