It's in the graun, so it must be true. However, just for once I'm going to agree with them. So, quick summary: Minnesota has a social cost of carbon, ish, and a Commission to quantify and establish a range of environmental costs associated with each method of electricity generation; and requires utilities to use the costs when evaluating and selecting resource options" in some sense or another. They were sued to update the value they used, from a rather low one set in 1997, to the current federal government’s Social Cost of Carbon. That was always going to be pretty hard to defend against; they weren't asking for some huge value plucked out of thin air by some wild-eyed eco-freak, but just to use the value set by the feds (there was other stuff too but I'll ignore that). The full report is here.
Naturally, various companies objected, including down-on-its-luck Peabody. And so, a court case, and voluminous court papers.
Peabody argued that only half of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuel emissions. The remainder comes from natural processes.41 According to Peabody, the claim that all increases in atmospheric CO2 are from human causes is simply unfounded.42
41 and 42 are "Ex. 207 at 6 (Lindzen Direct)" and "Ex. 207 at 6 (Lindzen Direct); Ex. 213 at 29 (Lindzen Surrebuttal)". That's simply astonishing. You have to be really dumb - or really clever-clever and think you're talking to dumb people - to say that. Barry Bickmore has a post about Dick Lindzen, Prager U., and the Art of Lying Well but this isn't lying well, it is lying badly. All - indeed, more than all - of the recent increase in CO2 is human caused. Why start off with a statement that clearly establishes that you're lying?
Peabody argued that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)49 simply assumed global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is greater than warming caused by natural variability, and therefore attributes the warming observed since the 1970s to anthropogenic causes.50
50 is, yes you guessed, Lindzen again. And this claim is, again, easily refutable drivel. I think old L has spent too long in the denialist echo chamber being lauded for everything he says. He has lost touch with reality, and hasn't had his arguments sharpened by contact with genuine opponents. There are shades of “Dr” Roy Spencer is sad and lonely and wrong.
According to Peabody, global atmospheric temperatures are measured by surface thermometers, weather balloons (radiosondes), and satellites.54 Peabody claimed all three methods of measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming since 1998.55
55 is, ha ha got you, its Spencer. But again, while it plays well in the denialosphere, its not going to survive real examination. This gem is also Spencer:
Peabody placed significant weight on the failure of the IPCC’s climate models to explain the hiatus in warming after 1998 except by the introduction of ad hoc mechanisms, such as aerosols.60 Peabody contended the IPCC’s climate models have no utility if they cannot reliably predict temperature change from CO2 emissions.
I've seen denialists say that: you're obliged to explain all temperature change on CO2, you're not allowed to use aerosols. Their fan base laps it up but can they possibly expect anyone else to believe it?
Interestingly, By driving current global GDP with carbon emissions, Peabody calculated that “at present, each ton of carbon used produces about $6,700 of global GDP". I don't have a strong feeling for whether that is true or not. But suppose it is; then a carbon tax of 1% of the benefits to account for the costs seems entirely reasonable, on their numbers, so what are they complaining about?
There's a note - para 49 - "The Commission and the Minnesota Court of Appeals recognize the IPCC as a source of expertise on climate change" which is an additional problem for the denialists. Courts and governments and so on are inevitably going to recognise the IPCC as such, and aren't going to fall for the black-helicopters nonsense. There's also - para 51 - "In 2007, the United States Supreme Court observed that “[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens <whatevs>... In making its observations regarding climate change, the United States Supreme Court favorably cited the IPCC". Peabody are arguing directly counter to that. They can do so, of course, but in doing so credibly they would need to address the stuff they disagree with. Again, this is so redolent of the "there is no prior art (that I can be bothered to look up)" that renders so many denialist sites worthless.
And so we end up, inevitably, with
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody Energy has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, the warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial.
Then we move onto the IAMs, which I mostly skipped (limitations: para 143); fans of the long discussion on discount rates we had in the comments a post or so back will be delighted to know they used 2.5, 3 and 5%; with 3% as the central estimate; see para 120. The table in para 137 shows that this matters, a lot. Both sides argued discount rates back and forth - because they do matter - but in the end, meh, you've got to use something. There's also some rather half-hearted arguing about ECS but again; a few comments from a few blokes aren't going to dent IPCC.
Oh, joy, I nearly missed:
Peabody disagreed with the CEO’s claim that 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists concur that humans are causing climate change.681 Peabody contended that science is based on evidence, not agreement, and that consensus should not be given any weight. Peabody provided examples of scientists, including Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and several contemporary scientists, who made significant breakthroughs in science despite being at odds with a majority consensus.
Conclusions
Para 13: IAMs are appropriate in this case and
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that, based on unreported and underreported health and environmental impacts, along with the IWG’s acknowledgement that the FSCC is not based on the most current research, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the FSCC understates the full environmental cost of CO2.
On ECS, Peabody gets comprehensively stuffed:
...Peabody failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ECS value of 1 or 1.5 degrees centigrade is correct and that an ECS of more than 2 degrees centigrade is “extremely unlikely.”... the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the ECS doubling ranges as reported by the IPCC in the IPCC AR4 (2.0-4.5 °C) and the IPCC AR5 (1.5-4.5 °C) are more accurate ECS ranges than the range advanced by Peabody because the IPCC ranges are representative of a comprehensive, peer-reviewed body of scientific study based on multiple lines of evidence.
and in the end the judge
recommends that the Commission adopt the Federal Social Cost of Carbon as reasonable and the best available measure to determine the environmental cost of CO2, establishing a range of values including the 2.5 percent, 3.0 percent, and 5 percent discount rates...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Attempting the Galileo Gambit in court is a brazen move. Good on the judge for slapping that down.
There are probably several cases in the pipeline that were set up because they were intended to become an appeal to a 9-member Supreme Court.
One of the oddities of the US system is forum-shopping, in which a company knowing they may get sued in a federal district will set up a similar lawsuit in a different federal district -- if the district courts are likely to reach different conclusions, having the case you prefer in the queue for the Supremes is tactical.
Setups intended to reach the 9-judge court are now backfiring.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-case…
Carbon emissions isn’t the mi$$ion.
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, the then co-chairman of Working Group III of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[2017 update: see-also VV's http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/ottmar-edenhofer-cli… -W]
I'm working on a deep dive on thiis case, and have downloaded !80 of the 500+ files from the MN database.
It is wondrous trove of good material, on legal record.
WMC ref'd ALJ Schlatter's findings.
Peabody provided lots of science nonsense, but the economics was even crazier. I especially liked the negative SCC, i.e.,subsidy of CO2 until 2+C rise... well, that might help bankruptcy.
Of the thousands of pages of material, the judge decided to include a dandy characterization from Atencies witness Gurney, see PDF p.99-, paragraph 353-362.
The hacks the hayseeds hire neither know nor care if their strawfoot witness is lying.
Hank, I'm certain you're right about cases being set up for Scalia et al. on the Supremes to shoot down, but I doubt this case was one of them.
I don't know that much about it but I expect it lives or dies under Minnesota law and would not have ever gone to the US Supreme Court.
if you people stand it, the MN case is here, all 500+ items.
For Peabody's last word, see Proposed Findings.
(If you get a Session Expired message, just click on the original link again.)
Among other things, para 20-21, "Dr. Gurney cited to the Suess Effect ", but didn't prove it. Of course, he didn't prove the existence of atoms, either.
Careful readers may get a whole different view on climate science ...
although the judge did not.
The earlier case was 1993-1997, but the coal group was Western Fuels Association, and used Ballings, Lindzen, Michaels and Keith Idso. It went through Appeals, but stayed in MN.
Indeed, I agree with Brian: I don't see any forum-shopping at all here.
If you look at the full report that WMC linked, this wasn't a suit against the PUC:
I. Procedural History:
"On October 9, 2013, several environmental advocacy organizations filed a motion requesting that the Commission update the cost values for carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, establish a cost value for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and re-establish a value for sulfur dioxide (SO2). In the motion, the environmental organizations recommended that the Commission adopt the federal government’s Social Cost of Carbon as the cost value for CO2."
The MN Agencies were to investigate, and they recommend the FSSC, but also noted there was little agreement.
The PUC said: let's have a contested court case, collect the parties, and have public comments.
SO, this ended up being
Blue: Agencies, Clean Energy Orgs, etc
Red: Peabody
Orange: Xcel
Orange: Utilities
Orange: MLIG, MN Large Industries
Blue: science and FSSC
Orange: science, but not FSSC, and disagree
Red: science is all wrong, so not FSSC, and ideally, SCC that's zero or negative, so CO2 gets subsidized.
Judge almost entirely accepted blue, but did give Xcel credit for something close.
Anyway, this all got going because CEOs and Agencies wanted it ... and I rather doubt they were thinking about Scalia :-)
What a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. Look at the number of legal professionals involved in this sham SCC BS.
I love the fancy names given to these commissions. Just a smokescreen. The above article written by William Connolley is about as easy to follow as a legal document, which I suspect is by design. The matter could be simply resolved by mandating the energy companies to implement the necessary scrubbing equipment to eliminate the dangerous components of their effluents and enforcing them to conservative safe limits. Incredible methods are at our present technological disposal to be able to do this with CO2, which is again the largest component of the greenhouse emissions, with simultaneous removal of significant quantities of the remaining trace effluents. But no, you want to enact some hokey legislation based on pseudo-science that paves the way for the ridiculous carbon tax. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. It is necessary for the survival of greenery and thus animal life and humanity. It is not a pollutant. That is like saying we can eliminate forest fires by cutting down all the trees. Instead, proponents want to shut down industries that employ thousands of people and provide energy sources for human existence. These sources when properly managed have little to no impact on our environment and permit the proliferation of industries that power our failing economies. Instead there is push to impose crushing legislation making it impossible to compete on the global market. Get your fucking heads out of your asses and wake the fuck up!
Sincerely,
Antoni Peters, Ph.D.
R&D Scientist and Inventor
Dear Doctor Peters @#9,
We would like to offer you an opportunity to purchase some prime real estate downstream from the Crapadilly Power Plant coal impoundment. This pristine land has a nearly indetectable amount of coal ash from the previous three spills and has nearly been restored to its former natural appearance. Located next to the scenic Crapadilly Valley Black Lung Hospice, this land has real development potential.
We also have some prime development land on Truncated Mountain Terrace, and there are no longer any known landowners downstream of this development ever since the last mudslide essentially cleaned the valley out .
Knowing that you are currently looking for new opportunities we will continue to send you info on other new and exciting sites for development. You know our motto. Helping industry and its supporters help themselves.... to everything! Bon appetit!
Oh, Oh - John Mashey is on the case! We can expect reams of diagrams detailing the conspiracy from his fevered imagination.
Oh - and if it is a contest between Lindzen and Barry Bickmore? That Barry B is a real scientific powerhouse. Lindzen is probably demoralized that he had to go up against that other powerhouse - John Abraham, who passes himself off as a climate scientist.
Mashey, Bickmore, Abraham - frauds and lunatics that happen to have corrupt judges on their side
[You're foaming at the mouth -W]
"The matter could be simply resolved by mandating the energy companies to implement the necessary scrubbing equipment to eliminate the dangerous components of their effluents and enforcing them to conservative safe limits. Incredible methods are at our present technological disposal to be able to do this with CO2, which is again the largest component of the greenhouse emissions, with simultaneous removal of significant quantities of the remaining trace effluents."
Talk is cheap If you flap your mouth fast enough you can fly.
Tom C:
That skirts, if not crosses, the line of actionability. If I were one of those gentlemen, I'd be talking to my lawyer.
A few months ago, WMC mentioned Antero Ollila, The peer review of Ollila (2016), to which I add Finnish Man Uses Easy Open-Access Journals to Publish Junk Climate Science.
In LIndzen's Surrebuttal, PDF p.34. we find:
"Another study found that the present anthropogenic CO2 fraction in the atmosphere is
7.7%, which is substantially smaller than the IPCC’s estimate. The study noted: “The
IPCC’s latest value for the anthropogenic CO2-percentage in the atmosphere is 28%. This huge gap with the other research results originates from the long residence time
calculation method of IPCC.”80
fn80 80 Olilla (2015): Anthropogenic CO2 amounts and fluxes between the atmosphere, the ocean and the biosphere. Physical Science International Journal 8(1): 1-17, 2015, Article no.PSIJ.18625, available at http://www.sciencedomain.org/media/journals/PSIJ_33/2015/Jul/Ollila8120…
PSIJ is one of those on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access (vanity) journals.
On the next page, we find
fn83 Stallinga and Khmelinskii, 2014: Application of signal analysis to the climate. International Scholarly Research Article ID 161530, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/161530.
Stallinga was one of the reviewers of that paper by Ollinga, see comment, including
"Peter Stallinga University of the Algarve, Portugal
http://www.stallinga.org/AcadActiv/AcademicActivityPS.html
He is at Center for Electronics Opto-Electronics and Telecommunications, CEOT, labels Climate “a hobby” and rejects the scientific consensus on climate change."
There are more... We find Humlum, and Francois Gerbais, in IJMP B.
We find (fn84) a SCIRP journal and (fn118) Jose Duarte, and RPjr blog on gray literature, and Joe D'Aleo, and CO2science ...
Witness Kevin Gurney characterized this well (linked earlier), but I'd say more:
it is classic method to build a reference list with credible sources, but rely heavily on gray sources, while ignoring key sources or misinterpreting the ones cited.
The Wegman Report was a good example.
See Noevo:
I wondered whether SN was quoting Herr Edenhofer accurately, so I googled "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” I got lots of hits, including Wikipedia, which cited WUWT as its source! The other hits were all to AGW-denier blogs or blatantly biased "news" sites. WUWT and a couple of other sites I checked sourced it with a broken(!) link to the GWPF.
I finally located the original German-language text of the interview, in The New Zurich Times. I ran it through Google translate (German -> English, as no Schwyzerdütsch translation was available), and nothing like the quoted phrase appeared in the translated text. At the least, that leaves open the possibility that what Herr Edenhofer actually said doesn't mean what SN's AGW-denier sources want him to think it means.
Yet more evidence, if any is needed, that SN isn't a genuine skeptic but rather a motivated AGW-denier (and Evolution-denier, by his comments elsewhere). What motivates him, one doubts even he can explain.
[Thanks for noticing the cite was to WUWT. I'm afraid I was more careless, and merely checked that wiki had the quote. Since WUWT isn't a RS, I removed the source; and then on reflection since it was uncited, I removed the quote too -W]
So, Mal and William - it is your opinion that John Abraham is a climate scientist?
Gosh Mal - I ran Herr Edenhofer's interview through Google translate also. Here is what I got:
"First of all, we have industrialized countries the atmosphere of the world community quasi expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute by the climate policy de facto the world assets to. That the owners of coal and oil which are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free himself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing."
I don't know exactly what this means.
[No; its clearly non-grammatical and there is clearly a risk that it is so garbled it doesn't reflect what he actually said in German. So, I cut it from the wiki article -W]
But you claim that it is "nothing like the quoted phrase". I say [cut -W].
Oh my! Is that "actionable"? Am I not allowed to challenge lying alarmists?
[I expect some basic level of civility from those commenting here. If you don't show that, you'll go into the moderation queue -W]
Tom C - given how much he has published on the subject, and his background and fields of interest, it would be a pretty strange definition of climate scientist that would exclude John Abraham.
Perhaps your definition is that one must exclusively publish on climate?
Agreed, I'd be very surprised if these particular cases went past the state level -- and the Supreme Court only has the option, not the requirement, to agree to take a petition. These aren't like the voter ID cases, where different states make different fundamental choices. These are specific to one company in one state.
Hank: yes, the previous case records showed ruling and appeals, but ended in MN Supreme COurt:
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Western Fuels Association and the
conditional petitions of the Lignite Energy Council and the State of North Dakota for further review be, and the same are, denied. "
Thank goodness for electronic documents; MN forests would have been consumed.
Tom C:
As for what you're allowed to do: this is the best explanation you're likely to get. As for what how you can expect people to react: since you apparently can't tell the difference between "challenge" and "libel" any better than Mark Steyn can, you might want to consult an attorney.
Mal Adapted's livelihood doesn't depend on his reputation, so you can call him a liar as often as you want, and all he can do is wait for you in the tall grass. Abraham and Bickmore, though, are professional scientists whose livelihoods do depend on their reputations for scientific integrity, so they'd have more cause for legal action. But they'll decide for themselves whether being accused of fraud by some random hater on the Internet is worth their trouble or not.
"[You’re foaming at the mouth -W]"
I think it says volumes that even 'lightweights' like Abraham and Bickmore (with all due respect to their work!) run circles around supposed luminaries like Lindzen. This must really hurt Tom C, so what else is left than foaming?
Anyway, all this just to warn you of "he who will not be named", who apparently has had a little fall-out with his fellow Galen Bradwardens (sorry for being cryptic - I don't want to invoke it), according to a comment over on Klimazwiebel. Maybe you already stoat-holed a similar comment?
[GB is... dragonslayer? Ah, you mean the man of cloth. No, nothing recent -W]
You guess correctly :-).
Odd he chose Klimazwiebel to announce the conflict.
[He must be running out of places that will publish him -W]
William –
Mal said that the google translate version of the Edenhofer interview was “nothing like” what was quoted. Do you agree? I don’t.
[I don't feel obliged to have an opinion. For the purpose of wiki, the source being WUWT / google translate was good enough to make it unreliable. You, however, are responsible for your own "frauds and lunatics that happen to have corrupt judges" which is foaming at the mouth -W]
I think it was nearly word for word. Maybe there is a mis-translation, but it clearly very much like what was quoted.
Abraham teaches heat transfer at a small liberal arts college. He had absolutely no experience with climate science or any related field until he had a run-in with Monckton several years back. Since then he has glommed on to articles by various peripheral players in the debate. To say that he is some sort of “expert witness” on climate science, on par with Lindzen, is preposterous
[Suddenly, you've gone over all credentialist. You can do that if you want to, but if so: the IPCC wins. Are you prepared to accept that logically necessary consequence of your stance? -W]
You climate nazis can't touch me!
Use al the BS rhetoric you want.
If pristine lands have been destroyed it is because proper controls were not implemented in the first place, laws were not enforced, and there is rampant corruption and graft in local, state, and federal agencies. And these are the the people you elect - as if it makes a difference who - they are all owned lock stock and barrel. So don't try to group me in with any affiliation.
Antoni Peters:
I'm sorry, who the heck are you, and what affiliation are you denying? Who are these climate nazis? Who on Stoat are you grouping with them? I know it can't include me, as I haven't the slightest interest in touching you.
#23 Marco
Given Lindzen's Direct testiomony (PDF pp.22-75 in Direct Testimony, you can assess for yourself the quality of Lindzen's remarks, and Abraham's rebuttal, or Dessler's or Gurney's.
Of course, for many, one need only visit Skeptical Science.
Lindzen has often deceived/lied when he could get away with it, in talks for Heartland, video for Western Fuels, or odd papers in arXiv/Euresis. This doesn't work very well when faced with knowledgeable opposition, in front of judges who have practice in detecting BS.
[Sorry; but you need to have something to say, and make some attempt to say it civilly -W]
Tom C - you're a nutter. Abraham has been the lead author on at least four climate papers. As for his credentials - he has stated them himself:
"I am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas, a private, Catholic university in Minnesota. I have taught courses in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, numerical simulation, and thermodynamics. Topics in my courses include radiation, convection, and conduction, the same physical processes which govern energy flows in the climate. My PhD thesis dealt with combined convection and radiation heat transfer. My thesis is held in the library at the University of Minnesota, it is available to the public.
My published works span many topics including convective heat transfer, radiative heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and numerical simulation. My work on numerical simulation is at the very forefront of computational fluid dynamic (cfd) modeling. I am an expert in non-linear fluid simulations. My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics.
In addition to academic research, I am an active consultant in industry. I have designed wind turbines, built and tested geothermal cooling systems, studied the potential of biofuels to replace petroleum, and designed and created solar-radiation shields for buildings in desert climates. Taken together, I believe that I have the background required to discuss the issues of energy and the environment."
You, of course, are free to agree with Monckton. Hardly surprising.
For anyone reading this who is curious and has time to kill, yes, by all means go and read the docs that John links to above
As a public service the TL:DR Lindzen testimony:
climate has always changed ...
But da modulz
Nic Lewis or deniers in-house ?
More but da modulz
No warming, small warming, good warming
The pause, the pause!
The Iris effect !!!!!
Atmospheric CO2 not from fossil fuels?! WTF? is he that far gone?
Taxman, taxman don't tax me - tax that man behind that tree
CO2 is plant food
Tol's gremlins
Doesn't understand climate sensitivity is an emergent property of da modulz
climate sensitivity = 0.85C to 1.5C
But da modullz (repeat as many times you like)
ARCTIC SEA ICE IS RECOVERING !!!!
Well, that was fun. He not once invoked the sun or sunspots!!! That was just the direct testimony. Exhibit 1 is simply a list of his published papers. I will leave it to someone else to cover Exhibit 2. On a glance it appears to be a slightly enlarged/written version of the direct testimony.
Pretty much your usual day at WUWT, minus a conspiracy theory or two.
ATTP has a post up on the The calibre of climate “skepticism”. Yet why should we expect better when the most renowned scientist in their camp can't do anything more than cite outlier research, research laden with mistakes, and recite tired pseudoskeptic memes?
And you don't want to ask WHUT what he thinks of Lindzen :)
#32 Fossil fuel: yes, far gone.
But after all, back around 1991, there was The Greening of Planet Earth, put together by the Idso family busness. That's 28 minutes, and if it has dissappaered, Google for it, as there are copies. This was brought to you via the Western Fuels Association, i.e., Powder River coal.
Try Sherwood Idso at 9:54-, and within a minute, you see a map of earth ... greening up, like the Sahara. (Of course, Liebig's Law of the Minimum is a challenge, as 10-year old farm kids might know.)
But then watch the next 6 minutes, which includes Lindzen tag-teaming with coal guy Gerd-Rainer Weber, dissing models, and showing our favorite abused graph.
To the best of my knowledge, that use by LIndzen is the oldest example of theAdoration of the Lamb.
Really, that video has a many of the same themes found in the current court case, although paid for by a different coal group.
Tom C2016/05/04
For anyone reading this who is curious and has time to kill, yes, by all means go and read the docs that John links to above.
I suspect reading your published works would take much less time. Just give us the DOI numbers.
This is the key part of the NZZ interview with Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010:
Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Warum? Weil wir noch 11 000 Gigatonnen Kohlenstoff in den Kohlereserven unter unseren Füssen haben – und wir dürfen nur noch 400 Gigatonnen in der Atmosphäre ablagern, wenn wir das 2-Grad-Ziel halten wollen. 11 000 zu 400 – da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.
De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.
Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.
I would translate that as:
Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet - and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 - we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.
De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly: We de facto redistribute the world's wealth due to climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil which are not enthusiastic is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
A wordy way of saying that climate policies have large economic implications and that these impact different countries differently. Ironically in the sentence quote by the mitigation sceptics Ottmar Edenhofer is expressing understanding for the owners of coal and oil.
Also doing nothing is redistributing wealth: "we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community."
Thank you, Victor, that's how I read the word salad coming out of the translator, but was unable to trust my instincts. Kind of the opposite of what Tom C claims . Edenhofer has pointed out that the developed world has already redistributed wealth in its favor by expropriating the atmosphere.
Kevin O'Neill
Have I ever said I agree with Monckton or have I ever said anything positive about him? Please supply the reference. If you are unable please admit that you made it up.
Re Edenhofer, I said that I did not understand what the passage meant, but that Mal's claim that it was "nothing like" what was quoted was clearly false. I did not "claim" that it meant anything one way or the other. You made that up.
William - Why does O'Neill get away with calling me a "nutter"? Is that civility? Re "credentialist", where have I ever said I disagree with IPCC conclusions? You made that up. I just don't accept the alarmist "20 ft sea level rise!", "the polar bears are dying!" etc.
Russell - What dos my publication record or lack thereof have to do with anything?
[You get an ever so slightly but not very raw deal. I had assumed he was responding to the comment I deleted as incivil, in which case you'd deserve whatevs. As it happens, he was responding to your silliness about Abraham. But really, grow up a bit: if you can't take it, don't dish it out -W]
I ws not putting myself forward as an expert I anything. Unlike Abraham, who [No. Sorry, if you want to attack A, do it somewhere else -W]
If Kevin can stand it, perhaps he would review, as per #32, the Directs of
Spencer, pp.1-21
Happer pp.76-105
especially in light of The Greening of Planet Earth.
It would be cruel to ask for a review of Mendelsohn (pp.106-173) or Bezdek (379 pages of 2nd file, which only gives 6 hits for Monckton,
7 hits for Oregon (as in Oregon Insitute, Petition, etc)
~20 hits hits for CATO
7 hits for Heartland
Electronic trees died.
[Spammed. Feel free to discuss there if you're actually interested -W]
Victor: thanks for translation, maybe that's an end to the diversion.
There was an intrresting pattern, as per #8.
Since this was about economics:
1) 3 orange groups brought economists
2) blue brought 2 envionmental economists, 1 from MN, both of whom are Members of NAS for that, Polasky and Hanemann.
3) Peabody brought 3 people to dispute the science, plus 2 economists. Happer, of course is an atomic physicist.
Evonomist Mendelsohn uses DICE, with parameter changes that say no net damage until 1.5C OR 2C (he might want to visit Fort McMurray and tell people that), and cites Climate Casino, by William Nordhaus, (another NAS Member). Minor problem: Nordhaus quotes FSCC and has curves quite in line with it.
In rebuttals, Peabody brings in Tol, who with others denigrate Hanemann and Polasky's credentials and experience.
In rebuttals, Dessler, Abraham and Gurney addressed bad science in the Directs, including reliance on gray sources..
Tom C -
"Mashey, Bickmore, Abraham – frauds and lunatics that happen to have corrupt judges on their side" Nutter.
"Oh my! Is that “actionable”? Am I not allowed to challenge lying alarmists?" Nutter.
"He had absolutely no experience with climate science or any related field until he had a run-in with Monckton several years back." Yes, he only teaches thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. How could that be related to climate science? Nutter.
"To say that he [Abraham] is some sort of “expert witness” on climate science, on par with Lindzen, is preposterous" - We have Lindzen's testimony. It's fraught with nuttery. I gave the TL:DR. The fact he claims fossil fuels are not responsible for the increase in CO2 is enough by itself to disqualify him from any claim to knowledge. Abraham stuck to the science - Lindzen stuck to tired old pseudoskeptic memes You stand by Lindzen's testimony. Nutter.
Victor Venema:
Thanks, Victor. It seems an accurate translation of the NZZ interview does yield the quote mined by Benny Peiser for its propaganda value, but it's more likely your interpretation of what Edenhofer meant by it is the correct one. That was in fact the first way I read it.
Peiser apparently learned well from l'Éminence rouge, who is reputed (that is, translated from 17th-century French and quote-mined) to have said:
#43 kKevin: the issue with Lindzen is *not* lack of knowledge.
Years ago, I tried a knowledge scale, which I think was reasonably consistent.
I tried to put together an anti-knowledge scale, but that was much harder, in that two people can say the same thing, but one is clueless and the other actually knows a lot, but is deceptive. I may try again some time.
Kevin O'Neill -
In #38 I challenged you to support two accusations or admit that you made them up. You did not respond to either one, instead calling me a name 4 times in #43. So I assume you made them up.
You also accused Lindzen of claiming that no atmospheric CO2 came from fossil fuels. I read the testimony and that is clearly a lie. He said there was no way to separate the amount out-gassed from the oceans from the amount released directly to the atmosphere.
[Hold on, that was me, no? In the post: "According to Peabody, the claim that all increases in atmospheric CO2 are from human causes is simply unfounded" - and that's sourced to L. The claim, as written, is stupid and wrong. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming L said but it also sounds stupid and wrong. Face it: arguing about whether the CO2 increase is human-caused is stupid; it *is* human-caused. That L is going anywhere near this issue is pathetic -W]
Finally, it is ironic that you think John Abraham can sue me or something if I call him a fraud. He first came to light when he put together a video slamming Monckton. Monckton responded with a long presentation demonstrating Abraham’s multiple lies, and hinting at legal action. Abraham issued a modified video with 30% of the original - those parts Monckton caught him on – cut out.
So, your Johnny boy is not only a fraud, but the only guy capable of making Monckton look good.
[Please will you stop going on about A and M. M threatens to sue anyone who breathes at him but never actually does anything -W]
William -
The section you are referencing is introduced by a statement regarding ice core records showing that CO2 increase can lag behind temperature increase, suggesting that the CO2 increase was due to out-gassing of the oceans. A couple of sentences later he says that the CO2 increase could be due to both anthropogenic emission and, implicitly, the ocean out-gassing, and that the distribution between these two sources is not known with certainty. Seems reasonable to me.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand, or why it should cause shrieking claims of deception from you or your blog commenters.
[http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/19/theres-no-light-the-foolish-ca/ -W]
W:
Spencer+Lindzen+Happer+Mendelsohn, PDF p.29:(Lindzen):
"Q. Could you summarize your principal conclusions as to the relative roles of temperature versus fossil fuel emissions in determining increases in atmospheric CO2?
A. Even the connection of fossil fuel emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels is open to question. In the ice core records of the ice ages, it appears that CO2 levels may follow temperature increases, rather than vice versa. Recent studies suggest that only about half of atmospheric CO2 concentrations may be due to fossil fuel emissions. For example, although data from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows that CO2 emission rates of increase roughly tripled between 1995 and 2002, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained essentially unchanged during that time. It appears that we are currently unable to relate atmospheric CO2 levels to emissions and even less to relate CO2 levels to temperature and still less to regional changes."
See also PDF pp.31-36 in Lindzen Surrebuttal..
See fn 79, 80, 81, 83, and 84,
CO2 lags temperature is SkS#11.
[Thanks. That's L trying to throw up FUD; but he's garbled it. Recent studies suggest that only about half of atmospheric CO2 concentrations may be due to fossil fuel emissions. WTF? Pre-industrial was ~280, we're now at ~400; human emissions have "only" caused 120/400 of the current *concentrations*. OTOH, we're certain that human emissions have caused more than 100% of the increase, so to speak, taking account of airbourne fraction.
This is just poor-quality FUD from L; quite rightly it got ripped to shreds in the case. I really find it hard to imagine what L was thinking when he wrote this. Probably something like "oh sh*t, those Peabody cretins insist I write them something that doubts everything, there's no point wasting my time doing it properly since its all hopeless, and they'll pay me anyway" -W]
W:
Well, they paid Happer $8K (to be donated to "
CO2 Coalition") and Spencer got $4K, but we don't know what Lindzen got this time.
This phase is almost over. The parties filed exceptions to the judge's findings 05/05/16, and the last step is replies to the exceptions 05/16/16. Unlike the rest of the parties, Peabody did *not* file exceptions, and I await next week to see what happened. It could be they gave up, or maybe they just figure to appeal anyway,
Tom - I've asked you probably a dozen times if you've ever removed the libel of Al Gore from your website. You've *never* responded. So, have you?
Re: agreement with Monckton; I didn't answer your question because the claim was patently obvious.. You don't *have* to *say* you agree with Monckton, your comments speak for themselves. Monckton *also* criticized Abrahams' credentials. So you agree with Monckton. I should have known it would need to be spelt out for you.
Re: Lindzen, CO2, and fossil fuels; page 6 of his direct testimony has him saying: " Even the connection of fossil fuel emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels is open to question." Clear enough for ya, Tom? Perhaps you need to read harder. Accept it for what it is - your expert hero is a nutter. [PA cut; its not necessary -W]
It always makes me laugh when the contrarians and deniers talk about lawsuits "proving" their anti-science or prosecuting people who spread scientific facts.
The courts have rules. One of the big ones is you can't make stuff up. Another is finality. Once something is settled you can't re-litigate it. AGW has made it up to the highest court in the nation, and they didn't argue the science because it is proven.
Not that "proving" something in court is the same as science, but in the common usage of the word I think the legal usage is a little easier to understand.
Tom C 38: "Russell – What dos my publication record or lack thereof have to do with anything?
Having one would signify greater familiarity with scientific reality than your comments here suggest.
The lack thereof would tend to confirm the lack of intellectual seriousness evident in them.
So please give us the DOI numbers , if you have any.
Kevin O’Neill –
I don’t have a website and I don’t think I have ever libeled Al Gore, so not sure what you are talking about.
Lindzen was a lead author for the IPCC. I’m quite sure he understands why CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and that anthropogenic emissions are involved. He has dozens of presentations easily available on line that detail his opinions. What he was saying is that the mass balance has never been closed definitively. The fractional increase due to out-gassing is not known for sure.
William – you are correct, what he wrote was garbled. It only makes sense if you assume he meant that the “only half the CO2 *increases* may be due to…”.
[Yes; he might have meant that. But that is stupid too. Really it is; trust me on this if you'll trust me on anything. L has lost track of truth and lies and forgotten when he can get away with lying-by-misdirection and when he falls over the edge; he's stopped talking to real people and started only talking to Peabody-style idiots -W]
One big hint abut what Lindzen was saying might, just might, be the question he was responding to. Here is the question:
Could you summarize your principal conclusions as to the relative roles of temperature versus fossil fuel emissions in determining increases in atmospheric CO2?
Got that guys? Relative roles?
[Its just a regurgitated denialst meme. It works great at WUWT; it won't impress anyone with a clue. You (and L) need to stop beating this dead horse. It is dead. It is an ex-horse. It isn't pining for the fiords; it is no more -W]
William Sorry, but I can't trust you on that one, I am a chemical engineer and know how to do mass balances. It is not *denialist* at all because it does not deny AGW, it just established parameters for discussion of mitigation vs reduction strategies..
[Feel free to wander lost in the wilderness with L on this, then. But we've reached the end of the line for discussion of it here -W]
W: are you sure it isn't a dead parrot, that's just sleeping?
For insight one may read Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
See specially PDF p.2
"The author wishes to thank Dennis Ambler, Willie Soon, Lubos Motl, Steve McIntyre and Nigel Lawson for useful comments and assistance."
and skim the bibliography.
Tom C - My apologies for the Al Gore accusation. I was confusing you with a different Tom. My only excuse is your arguments were similar enough that my mind conflated the two of you.
The apology stops there, though. You jumped in calling others frauds and liars, made the same assertions about Abrahams' credentials as Monckton, and then posit Lindzen as a reputable witness. Sorry, but that has all the hallmarks of a WUWT post.
Typo: that was p.22.
William --- New topic, please.