Image source here
From Andrew Bolt’s blog at the Herald Sun:
Professor John Quiggin complains of smears by sceptics:
In recent years, science and scientific institutions have come under increasingly vociferous attack, with accusations of fraud, incompetence and even aspirations to world domination becoming commonplace… Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction.
Ethically unconstrained, Professor John Quiggin smears a sceptic:
In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system, I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime…
So, to sum up, McIntyre organised the campaign which led to the creation of the file, obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, received the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. Whether or not he was directly involved in the theft, or merely created the opportunity and benefited from the proceeds is impossible to determine, and essentially irrelevant.
OK professor, let’s see your evidence beyond this missive.
Somebody needs to educate Quiggin on the CRU ftp security blunder that was “the mole”. He doesn’t get it, and then proceeds to use that as “evidence” against McIntyre. It’s comical.
Here’s Professor Quiggin’s page at the University of Queensland:
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html?page=15898
R. Gates (11:30:07) : “Also, if the arctic sea ice is going to make a run to get into some positive anomaly state this winter, it better hurry, as the spring melt is about to begin and, and with arctic temps generally running well above average…”
Uh, no.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Where do you get these odd notions? Does someone pay you to come here and post these bizarre claims?
I posted this on Quiggin’s personal site:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/13/science-the-victim-of-dishonest-attacks/comment-page-2/#comment-257917
Quote:
I came here from Bolton’s rant. I saw the familiar smears, but Quiggin’s unsubstantiated claims that “McIntyre done it” are just appalling.
Then, I realised I’d read one of Quiggin’s articles “Uncertainty and Climate Change Policy”, 2008. It is simply useless stuff. The best bit was his “equation” where he says:
“Emissions = Population * Output / Population*Energy/Output*Emissions per unit Energy”
Or calling Emission “X” so as not to confuse with Energy “E”, we have X = P * O / P * E / O * X / E
Shuffling we get X = P / P * O / O * E / E * X or X = X.
Yes, proof that 1 = 1 is really helpful. And that in an Economic Journal too!
No, Quiggin’s article had no science in particular and made me certain that Aust Research Council Federation Fellows need to have enough AGW publications to guarantee next year’s round of funding.
Sadly, I had hoped there might some some real stuff about uncertainty, like how uncertain are the assumptions in the models, how are uncertainties handled when modeling a complex system over 50 or 100 years or so, and even the simple stuff, like do the models use arbitrary precision arithmetic or do the rely on the known, imperfect system of floating point calculations (where is it easy to demonstrate the (A – B) – C does not always equal A – (B – C)) and if they *do* use the basic floating point system, do they carry error estimates through the course of the calculations? Nope, no answers in Quiggin’s world of “Uncertainty”.
(BTW – The CRU code to calculate the world’s temperature over time uses the simple floating point representations and does no calculation of uncertainty nor does it handle intrinsic floating point errors (rounding, representational, etc).
It is also clear to me that Quiggin has not read many of the emails, nor has he looked at the code in the CRUtapes. My mouth was agape at almost every single email in there. If you have not done so, you must spend an hour or two simply dipping into the emails. They are appalling.
If you have read the HARRY-READ-ME.TXT file, then it seems much more likely that HARRY or someone near him *inside* CRU is the whistleblower, they got sick of the sloppy “science” surrounding Phil Jones and his collaborators.
Finally, you can not accept the “trick” of grafting the dendro record to the recent temp record because we don’t understand why the recent dendro does not match the recent temp and just say “oh, some unknown but unimportant reason makes them deviate”. That is precisely the loose reasoning that makes anyone with two brain cells turn away from the alarmists propaganda.
I was both appalled, and couldn’t help but laugh, reading the comments on Quiggin’s site. I assume the commenters are his students, for it would be too horrific to imagine they were adults. What a cloistered little island of intellectual naïveté!
In terribly serious moments of his plays Shakespeare would often have a fool and a clown wander across the stage, making comments of hilarious stupidity, to create comic relief. Otherwise the play’s seriousness would simply become unbearable.
I wonder if Quiggin’s students are aware they have supplied the comic relief to a hugely serious subject.
“Kay (05:26:42) :
PS to last: Quiggen’s page at Queensland isn’t working. Shocker.”
Google’s cached version of the page from March 13th is here .. : http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:mTEHg24z_9sJ:johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/12/climategatethe-smoking-gun/+quiggin+mcintyre&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
courtesy of Anrew Bolt. Andrew has also “saved in case google updates their cache”
Wren (10:46:50) :
Wren,
do you pine for Marxism?
The problem with this is not actually whether or not 2010 or 2011 will be HOTTEST on record, the problem is that it may be the hottest on RECORD. It is already apparent that there are considerable issues relating to the ground based thermometer record and the analysis and adjustments associates with them. The satellite record gives a clearer and less issue related temperature variation, however, this has only been in existence for ~ 30 years.
30 years, unfortunately, is not enough of a time record on temperature to make much of any conclusions in relation to problems with AGW – primarily for the fact that the only record we have that is remotely close to accurate also spans the main timeframe that we have contributed so much CO2.
While splicing and adjusting the satellite data to the land based thermometer data may seem to give us an indication of trends over the last century or more, you cannot put the two together and proclaim an accurate record of temperature. This means as a whole you need to look at the ground temperature data (whose issues are numerous and in some cases defying common sense – look here http://chiefio.wordpress.com/) or using just the satellite record – which due to its short nature cannot be used to determine trends.
So it is a little hard to directly answer the question because the question assumes something that is not neccesarily accurate – “on record” means a considerably short period of time – like saying “these are the best shoes I’ve ever owned” when its only your third pair – the statement may be accurate (that they are the best you’ve had) but there is precious little to compare it with. This also applies to the last sentence “potential record heat”. Well yes – for the last 30 years, but thats not really the question that needs asking.
Unfortunately, you have done something very similar here – your comparing absolutes with short time spans. You have also attributed the 2007 minimum to global warming when more recent investigations are showing that temperatures were not responsible for the large fall in ice.
Relating to the question however, we have ~ the same amount of ice extent and area data as we do for satelite temperature data (that is around 30 years). Again you are talking about the decline in ice over a very short period of time – and assumed that it is the lowest its ever been. One iconic description attached to this reduction in ice is associated with the “North West Passage” opening up.
The interesting thing however, is that in recorded history (naval history) ships have gone through an open north west passage before our recorded satelite history.
As much as I don’t like wikki, it makes for easy copy pasting:
And these are only a few of them. In addition:
Common sense tells us that we may well have reached similar ice minimums over the last 100 years – just without the aid of a lovely satellite to show us. In addition, if we did approach the minimum of the current sea ice extent on one or more occasions over the last century, then why is the current minimum so worrying? There just isnt enough accurate data to say that what is occuring now is not natural events.
Now I am not saying this is evidence against AGW, what I am saying is that our perception of “on record” is very skewed in that it is an incredibly short period of time that we have had accurate data. This is why I am still sceptical and while there are AGW proponents out there hawking catastrophic messages when real world data disagrees, they will never get me to jump on board with the theory.
The defamation is still up here.
http://johnquiggin.com/
“Commentary on Australian and world events from a social-democrat perspective”
Indeed.
Moderator I may have missed an /blockquote tag there somehwere as the post has gone into quote of quote mode. If you notice it, could you just fix it so the post looks a little more ordered? Thanks 🙂
Mirosalv Pavlíček (10:25:29) :
Good to have a former victim of communism on side. I love your terminology – calling the AGW catastrophists the Carbonari is brilliant – has a kind of police-state ring to it, plus being short and sweet. Not sure what you mean by ‘buffo” though.
Wren (13:53:47) :
Call me skeptical of people who call themselves skeptics. A true skeptic is evenhanded.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Some skeptics are more evenhanded (equal) than others on the Animal Farm, hey Wren?
R. Gates (11:30:07) :
Don’t you realise there is an El Nino almost of the scale of 1998 going on?
So if you want to be taken seriously in your off topic rant at least compare apples with apples compare it with the early months of 1998 here
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Now try to stay on topic.
joe (14:24:58) :
“Quiggen is actually a well respected economist and with an impressive list of publications ”
He is also known for his appearance on Geico commercials.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Why isn’t skepticism easy enough for even him to understand?
Does Australia have a libel law like the UK?
I suggest Steve use it.
Veronica (England) (16:05:57) :
R Gates
Surely you have been hanging out here long enough to realise that the temperature data is of dubious quality?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Dubious is not an issue. Having ‘N-A-S-A’ attached to GIStemp is the only authenticity needed.
Past comments from his web site sets his background tone;
Climate denial has had its day
John Quiggin Australian Financial Review
6 July 2006
The government’s inquiry into nuclear power has yet to hold hearings and take evidence, let alone produce a report. But its most important work has probably already been done. The announcement of the inquiry and the debate leading up to it has finally brought political reality in the debate over nuclear power and climate change into line with economic and scientific reality.
The only thing we know, with any reasonable degree of certainty, about the economics of nuclear power is that, at current prices, nuclear power is not competitive with generation based on burning carbon-based fuels like gas and coal. The most convincing evidence on this point is derived, not from engineering studies, but from simple observation. Even with a favourable regulatory environment like that of the United States, no new nuclear power plant has been commissioned for several decades. Nuclear power is growing only where it has some form of government backing.
If nuclear power is uneconomic at current prices, and is to be considered as a way of mitigating global warming, the economic policy problem has a simple answer. Put a price on carbon dioxide emissions either through a carbon tax or through requiring emitters to hold tradeable permits, and let the market find the most cost-effective solution. If the price of emissions rises enough, and no other solutions are more cost-effective, nuclear power will become competitive.
Handling those global-warming hot potatoes
John Quiggin Australian Financial Review
6 January 2007
2006 was a year for inconvenient truths. The Australian Labor Party finally recognised the inconvenient truth that it would never win with Kim Beazley as leader. The political elite in the US finally recognised the inconvenient truth that the war in Iraq has been a disastrous, and probably irreparable, failure.
Most notable of all, in the long run has been the recognition of the inconvenient truth presented in Al Gore’s amazingly successful documentary of the same name, that human activity is causing unsustainable global warming and other forms of climate change. Gore’s film partly caused and partly reflected a sudden shift in the terms of debate.
At the beginning of 2005, climate scientists were virtually unanimous in their support for the mainstream theory of human-caused global warming. However, the public debate in Australia and elsewhere did not reflect this.
Instead, a tiny minority of skeptical climate scientists, backed up by an array of amateur critics, right-wing pundits, and lavishly funded front groups managed to create the appearance of an evenly divided debate. During 2006, however, a combination of accumulating scientific evidence, exposure of the workings of front groups, and the direct experience of rising temperatures, droughts and bushfires destroyed the credibility of the sceptics once and for all, at least in Australia.
The government’s response has been to appoint a Task Force of a dozen members, all of whom are either representatives of fossil-fuel intensive companies and industries or senior public servants. The Task Force is supposed to develop a global system of emissions trading that will reduce CO2 emissions, while protecting the interests of Australian industry.
Unfortunately, any attempts to develop an alternative plan along these lines will run into yet another inconvenient truth. The probability of gaining global acceptance for any alternative system of emissions trading put forward by Australia is effectively zero.
The most plausible candidate though, is climate change. The government can scarcely imagine that a subsidy program for solar panels is going to do much to address the problem, or the political damage caused by a decade in which the main response to climate change has been to wish it out of existence.
John Quiggin Australian Financial Review
10 May 2007
It seems safe to assume that the Task Group on Emissions Trading, due to report on 31 May, will come out in favour of the general idea of emissions trading. However, the debate has moved so fast that the Task Group’s terms of reference, already seem obsolete. When the Task Group was announced, the government was still opposing any target for emissions reductions. Now the only serious question is whether the 50 to 60 per cent reductions proposed by Labor will be enough.
If the government is going to come up with a big new idea for the election, it could hardly do better than to announce ratification of Kyoto, along with a commitment to move Australia to the forefront of international emissions trading as soon as possible.
Denial industry in full cry
John Quiggin Australian Financial Review
16 August 2007
With John Howard’s conversion on the issue of climate change last year, it seemed that policy debate on the issue could finally proceed on the basis of mainstream scientific research, rather than fringe viewpoints and conspiracy theories. Some senior ministers remained unconvinced, but they seemed willing to keep quiet.
The latest report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation throws all this into doubt. Four of the six government members of the committee (Dennis Jensen, Jackie Kelly, Danna Vale and David Tollner) signed a dissenting report denying that human activities are disturbing the climate in dangerous ways, and describing those who accept the mainstream view as “fanatics”. If this is the view of government members of a committee on science, we can only guess the currency of such ideas within the government as a whole.
The dissenting report is the usual sorry stuff, familiar to anyone who has followed this debate, though the nonsense about climate change on Mars, Triton and Pluto will be new to many. It’s the latest of many talking points put forward by the denial industry, none of which have stood up to scientific scrutiny. Its main advantage is that it is too new to have been comprehensively refuted in reports like those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Of course, climate changes as a result of natural processes. A huge amount of scientific effort over the past twenty years has gone into examination of the causes of the observed warming of recent decades. The outcome of this research, documented in four successive IPCC Reports has been a steady increase in confidence that the majority of recent warming is caused by human activity. When the IPCC process began, back in 1988, much of this warming was still in the future. The two decades since have been warmer than any since instrumental records began in the 19th century, closely fitting the predictions of climate modellers like James Hansen of NASA.
There’s little point in debating these issues further. The really interesting question is why such obviously deluded beliefs remain so influential on the political right, at least in Australia and the US. The answer lies in the creation of a complete parallel universe, with an array of think tanks, news sources and experts, and a conspiracy-theoretic view of the world, in which an (admittedly imperfect) organization like the IPCC can be seen as a stalking horse for socialism or world government.
*at least he had some insight!*
Actually, a well-publicised retraction/apology would be better. Maybe Steve’s lawyers could write it for Quiggen to read on air?
REPLY: Knowing Steve, I don’t think he’ll go anywhere near that sort of demand. – Anthony
The guy’s (Quiggin) a piece of work… he proudly blogs that because of the objection to the word “denialist” he now calls AGW skeptics “delusionists.” In a later comment he throws in a few ad homs against Lindzen for good measure. The smugness of the Broken log blog is almost stiffling.
I should probably make it clear that the “comments” I was referring to were not the 37 comments that followed Quiggin’s article accusing McIntyre. Rather they were comments on his personal site, which seems to have vanished. They discussed things such as a recent convention of atheists. They were wonderfully naive, sincere, and unwittingly hilarious.
Steve, sue the bastard!
Professor John Quiggin is angry and afraid.
Obviously, he does not like McIntrye. Whenever I see such a display of animosity towards an individual, I conclude the source of animosity is afraid of the object.
The AGW crowd is very upset with McIntyre. The emails released to the public were very revealing, for more reasons than we can suspect.
There is more to come on this story.
PS> What I find amazing is that the guy is supposed to be an economist and he completely fails to understand the devastating effect an ETS would have on the Australian economy. He really is away with the fairies.
The single most important thing to understand about the Australian economy is that we export by far the largest portion of both the energy we produce in primary forms and the manufactured goods that are energy-intensive. Until you comprehend this very, very basic fact about the Australian economy it is pointless to enter into a debate about an ETS in this country. An ETS would be enormously disruptive to underlying industries that drive this economy (i.e. mining and petroleum industries)… particularly in Queensland and Western Australia (the two states that fared best in the last decade or so).
Unfortunately the main populations and seats of Federal political power are in the failed/failing states of New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT (Australian Capital Territory). This is why the lunacy persists unabated.
Every time I see the “climate change” issues being pushed by Canberra I think it is time, once again, for Western Australians to push for another referendum on the one issue the State voted “Yes” on in the past… secession.
“I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud.
Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker,”
OK, I cherry picked the text from Q’s original blog (leaving out the qualifying phrase) but his intent seems clear enough to me.
As long as the prof. used the words “moral responsibility,” he’s not making a libelous accusation. He’s sorta saying that Steve sorta said, “Will no one get that data for me?” (Sorta (but not really) like that king who said to his knights, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”)
As a result, Intrade’s bid/asked odds-spread on 2010 being the warmest year on record have now edged up to 50 / 55. That’s still a bargain from a warmest perspective, as it ought to be around 60%, given that three major warmists have said the odds are “better than even” of a record-setting year. Place your bids here (click on the appropriate + sign). (You can place a bid below the current odds level, in hopes of catching a bargain):
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/index.jsp?clsID=20&grpID=7620
I suspect the prof’s. remark is follow-through on Schneider’s comment a week or so ago, “This is a political fight, and we’ve got to get dirty.” I suspect there’ll be more from their side in this vein.
I think we’d do best to just ignore this type of behaviour. It’s not constructive and its just shameful. I’m very sad that UQ has been brought into this as it is a great university but I don’t feel the slightest wish to engage Quiggin on any level.