Sarà certo curioso arrivare da San Pietro e vederlo armeggiare con un telecomando… http://t.co/DogHn2D2
Ora della Terra…oppure ora del PR? http://t.co/xIoRZ9Kx
Monti in Cina incontra Wen Jiabao. Fra governi “tecnici” ci s’intende…
The public use of Twitter whilst the brains are disengaged should be discouraged @ross_abbey
- Titolone idiota 'stangata di primavera' su @Corriereit . Idiota perché la 'stangata' si traduce in 49 euro in più all'anno. #Italia #
- Why I will not turn the lights off for #EarthHour http://t.co/oZJzoqiQ >> @BigJoeBastardi #agw #climate in reply to BigJoeBastardi #
- In hindsight an idiotic oxymoron such as "scientific #consensus quot; of course attracts the simpleton, paranoid, debate-challenged types (cont) #
- (cont) plus the Crusaders of Science who believe there's a war so are ready to sacrifice Truth to defend it. #Consensus is a cretin's heaven #
- Rumor has it, at the bottom of the Marianas Trench James Cameron found @thinkprogress @MichaelEMann @ChrisMooney_ still digging… – #agw #
- Assurdo incolpare la politica @Rosario_Strano – l'Italia è democratica e gli italiani votano i loro veri rappresentanti. in reply to Rosario_Strano #
- You're wrong @GlobalEcoGuy – @pdouglasweather uses misleading graphs, baseless percentages, and selective Bible quotes. No 'common sense'. in reply to GlobalEcoGuy #
- No @richardabetts – policymakers don't rely on credible, objective science. As shown by 40 years of War on Drugs. @flimsin @Discotheque71 in reply to richardabetts #
- Policymakers are there to devise and implement policies – policy bases come later @richardabetts @flimsin @Discotheque71 in reply to richardabetts #
- And that is especially true for public health policies. Think Robespierre's Public Safety Committee – @richardabetts @flimsin @Discotheque71 in reply to richardabetts #
- I know a surefire way to identify bots on Twitter. It involves salsa and skateboarding against a wall of roses. #
- Twitter tools test 2 #
- Final twitter tools test #
Final twitter tools test
I know a surefire way to identify bots on Twitter. It involves salsa and skateboarding against a wall of roses.
This is a test. Please disregard
FAQ 3.1 | Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? […] None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here.
Full text follows.
For some reason, Onlineafghan.com has a page “Redacted letter to Michael Hintze” that contains information missing from the Guardian’s “Redacted email to Michael Hintze“, such as the amounts requested to Mr Hintze.
Onlineafghan.com has it “Posted on 27 Mar 2012 at 11:02am” whilst on the Guardian the timestamps are “This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 11.54 BST on Tuesday 27 March 2012. It was last modified at 12.42 BST on Tuesday 27 March 2012.”
Below, the bits in bold are absent from the Guardian’s version.
CQS Management Limited
33 Chester Street
London SW1X 7BL
21 September 2011
We assume that our previous letter to you, attached, somehow slipped your attention as we realise that you are really busy and may have been away. We do assure you that we will not be writing to you repeatedly.
However, because of the urgent need for action on climate change and health, illustrated by events in the last few months, we are taking the liberty of contacting you again to request support for the XXX. The carbon price legislation before the Australian parliament still faces much political and public opposition even though Australia is one of the heaviest carbon emitters in the world. Meanwhile, the capricious climate and extreme weather events in Australia this year, including severe flooding, especially Queensland, and ferocious bushfires in WA, make it clear we cannot afford to delay preventive action further. Drought and famine in Sub-Saharan Africa and floods again in Pakistan illustrate the disadvantage of developing countries and the imperative of more help from the developed world.
XXX focus is climate change and health but as you will agree, this requires as strong mitigation and adaptation as we, as a society, can muster.
XXX biggest problem is lack of funding. To date members have worked with “pro bono” and “in kind”. Funding needs are modest but necessary to undertake a series of planned projects. It is seeking to raise $150,000 from private sources to deliver on its policy, research and advocacy priorities and enable it to remain independent.
Breakdown of this funding need is:
Website = $30K
Policy/position papers = $50K
Health effects of fossil fuels report = $40K
Scoping paper on voluntary accreditation for health care organisations = $10K
Administrative and operational costs, including office and phone = $20K
In addition, we would like to fund priority research, to be agreed by the executive, for funding Masters and PhD students up to $50K and to also fund conference development and attendance up to $50K.
We do believe that the work of XXX would link well with that of your Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney and with your agreement, would like to establish contact.
We would be happy to provide you with any other information you require, set up a conference call with you, or meet face-to-face. XXX is will be attending the Durban conference on Climate Change and Health in December and XXX will be in the UK again in February 2012.
It would be wonderful and extremely helpful if you could provide some funding for this developing group and, of course, we would acknowledge any support you could provide.
We look forward to hearing from you.
With best wishes
Article source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/27/redacted-email-michael-hintze
Building up on Paul Penrose’s comment at JS:
How is this news if the results are not statistically significant? Or do people not know what that means? Once you take that into account what they are saying is: News flash – global temperature has not increased since 1998!
Actually, the news flash should be that, since 1998:
- Global temperature has not increased in any meaningful manner
- Northern Hemisphere temperature has not increased at all (some bits of the Arctic aside)
- At most we could talk of an Arctic, not Global Warming
- All of the above, despite all the continuous fudging and cooling of the past
Once again…Whatever Arctic warming there’s been, it’s also been inconsequential. And if HadCRUT4 doesn’t kill Global Warming, it certainly helps putting it in the right place..
HadSST3 selectively removes the majority of the long term variations from the pre-1960 part of the record. ie. it removes the majority of the climate variation…
…that cannot be attributed to anthropogenic global warming!
A couple of timewasting avoidance schemes when dealing with anti-skeptic Defenders of the Faith in Science:
(1) The Congealed Minds
Some people pop up in skeptic blogs commenting in a way similar to swashbuckling (or marauding), making statements such as “I believe the scientists doing the research are a much better judge of that than you are“.
That’s a very good sign that we’re dealing with people who:
- Worship mainstream scientific literature
- Are willing mouthpieces of somebody else
- Routinely misrepresent science as an organically growing process where past interpretations are cast in stone
- Act like those philosophers who would reply to Galileo continuously quoting Aristotle and the Aristotelians, rather than accept to reason by themselves
The only question to ask them is: Is there anything anybody could ever say, show, write, demonstrate, ask or explain in a blog or comment to a blog, that will make you change your mind?
The answer will of course be “No”. Therefore there is no point debating with them.
(2) The Deferrers
Another common anti-skeptic tactic is to invoke some Higher Authority, eg: “I won’t presume to substitute my non-professional judgment for that of someone who’s dedicated his career to a pursuit of unbiased scientific knowledge, just as I wouldn’t substitute my judgment for that of an oncologist or a neurologist treating myself or someone close to me“.
That’s a completely meaningless statement, because it is supremely illogical. If a person defers judgment to somebody else, obviously what that person writes has no value at all: we should always be looking for the opinion of “somebody else”. Anybody arguing “don’t listen to me, listen to somebody else” is a prisoner of twisted logic, as the first part of that sentence negates the second one. Therefore there is no point debating with them.
“Much of the contents of [Mann’s] book is old news“, according to Peter Gleick. In fact, an entire day spent at a website owned by somebody who interviewed the Man, has turned out nothing more than statements accompanied by “that’s nothing new” and “for those buried in the intellectual wastes of the Murdoch media – it will be brand new territory“.
IOW the general consensus appears to be that there is nothing in Mann’s book that has not already been mentioned, described or referred to somewhere on the web (and, I suspect, in the Climategate emails). Somebody tried to make the point that, according to agiographers, Mann’s book contains enough “to spark a dozen Master’s theses“. But that is not the point.
The point is, what would one find in Mann’s book that is nowhere else? Who knows…an insight, a revealing detail, whatever, anything as long as it is new. There has to be a reason to buy and then read the book, right?
According to Mann’s own supporters, the answers to those questions are still “nothing” and “none”. Well, no wonder Mann is ever so bothered about his enemies…with friends like Mann’s, no one needs enemies!
Un racconto brevissimo di Guido Botteri apparso come commento su “Climate Monitor“:
Una sera, ad Amalfi, seduto su una panchina di fronte al mare calmo, aspettando l’autobus per tornare a Ravello, incontrai un tizio. Non so come il discorso finì su quel punto, ma lui mi disse, ad un certo punto:
“La ricchezza è come la materia, sparsa per l’universo. Qua e là si addensa, ma dove si addensa di più e dove di meno. C’è giustizia nell’universo ? E’ forse giusto che il Sole sia tanto più piccolo di Aldebaran ? E’ forse giusto che l’elefante sia più grande del pipistrello, e che Bolt sia più veloce di me ? E’ forse giusto che io non abbia gli occhi azzurri, e la voce di Celentano ? O che le viole non siano rose, e che ci sia chi abbia diamanti, o petrolio sotto i piedi, senza aver fatto nulla per averli ? No, non c’è giustizia nell’universo, ma forse è meglio così, perché se ci fosse, se tutti i fiori fossero rose, e tutte le donne alte, bionde e con gli occhi azzurri, e tutti avessero la voce di Celentano o Mina….questo mondo sarebbe di una noia mortale. Credo che per questo Dio, o chi per lui, non l’ha voluto “giusto”. E per tornare alla nostra materia, che così ingiustamente si addensa dove sì e dove no, essa poi continua nella sua ingiustizia, perché proprio chi ha di più, per legge di gravità, attira ancora di più ed aumenta il gap [ allora non si era ancora diffuso il termine “spread” ] tra chi ha di più e chi ha di meno, e chi ha di più ha sempre di più, e aumenta la sua differenza con chi ha di meno. Così è per la ricchezza. Chi è ricco, se non fa cavolate, diventa sempre più ricco, per legge di natura. E allora, decrescere può solo far diventare più poveri, perché diminuisce la “forza di gravità economica”. La decrescita non è quindi paragonabile a quel che si perde, ma molto più ripida e dannosa. E’ giusto tutto questo ? Ora, se vogliamo tendere ad una maggiore giustizia, che tenda a diminuire quei divari, cosa stiamo facendo, un’opera di politica economica o un’opera morale ? Non confondiamo l’etica con l’economia, perché poi un’economia povera non può garantire i diritti, che senza una copertura finanziaria sono aria fritta. Quindi un’economia senza una correzione etica crea eccessivi divari, ma se azzera i divari crea solo povertà, e quindi meno diritti per tutti. Tra tutti uguali, ed eccessivi divari si deve cercare un compromesso che non sia troppo ingiusto e non sia troppo antieconomico.”
Detto questo mi salutò, perché era arrivato il suo autobus, e non ebbi nemmeno la prontezza di chiedergli come si chiamasse.
Everything else, is a corollary….
From Bishop Hill’s “Nobel laureate on temperatures” (Feb 2012):
The question is not whether temperatures have risen or whether mankind has affected the climate. Temperatures have always risen and fallen and mankind has always affected the climate. The question is whether we have a problem on our hands. The poor performance of the climate models suggests that the problem is much less than we have been led to believe.