This is my obligatory post on the CRU hack, which the denialist blogocave is referring to as “Climategate” while the pushback refers to it as “SwiftHack“. It grew out of a comment I did over at ClimateSight.
If you aren’t aware of the CRU hack, there’s an app for that. There’s a lot of good coverage on this, but there’s also a positively ludicrous amount of noise as well. The videos by Potholer54 and Peter Sinclair go into that somewhat, and there’s always SwiftHack if you want up-to-the-second information on it. (Aside: It’s sad that we need that, but oh well…)
This post isn’t about that, though. It’s about what’s not in the e-mails, and thus not causing any fallout. One of the best passages on this subject was also one of the first, from RealClimate:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Let’s take a look at the most common conspiracies and see what the CRU was saying about them in private over the last 13 years. The answers, below the fold, could be shocking.
(more…)
After Jon Stewart’s recent fiasco illustrating just how ill-informed he was on climate change, I knew I’d be watching rather closely the next time such an issue came up. When the Tuesday show ended, he mentioned Al Gore would be his guest the next day. Here’s how it turned out: (more…)
I have reached level 25.
(The years go by more easily this way.)
That is all.
Earlier, I provided an overview of carbon pricing systems, intended to help illustrate the discussion that, I felt, people should be having. Most of what I wrote there still stands, but I’ve been thinking on this a lot lately (especially since I’ve been almost obsessively following the Waxman-Markey bill discussion in the US House) and have realized two things: I left out a critical option, and my earlier support for cap-and-trade has waned. This post is intended to address those points. (more…)
One of the many things I’ve been up to since my last period of activity was participating in an interesting pilot project on campus: The Alberta Virtual Classroom, which, in part, enables discussion between grad students and high school classrooms around the world (well, North America so far, but the principle holds), letting us serve as mentors to young students. Despite not being a grad student (formally) and not being involved in climate change (formally), my name showed up on a list of grad students involved in climate change work (likely due to my position in the Energy Club), so I was invited to speak with a handful of others on the subject of climate.
While the experience itself was worthwhile on my end, one ancillary effect was that I finally compiled an excellent list of go-to resources and notes intended for high school students and teachers covering climate change — basically, stuff that covers many of the facets of the issues in a way that’s both comprehensive and comprehensible. Since the website where they’re stored will be going offline shortly, I figured I should repost them here. They’re below the fold.
(more…)
Monckton’s Exception
Definition 1: Godwin’s Law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Definition 2: Unnamed (longstanding tradition re: Godwin’s Law)
After a Nazi or Hitler comparison is made, the thread is over. He who has made such a comparison has just lost.
Definition 3: Quirke’s Exception
Any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. (That is, the exception to Godwin’s Law is intentionally invoking Godwin’s Law.)
Definition 4: Monckton’s Exception
Comparisons of nonviolent activists to the Hitler Youth are kosher, even face-to-face, and especially if the person you’re speaking to is Jewish. (See also: Monckton’s Justification and Monckton’s Solution).
If you’re unfamiliar with this exception’s namesake, pick a random article or two and see for yourself. If he didn’t exist, comedians would have to invent him - but the comedians would have the good taste to keep him locked away and medicated rather than letting him try to influence global policy with his conspiracy theories.