ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Michael Hardner]

We didn't have the Community Re-investment Act. And social activists picketing the homes and offices of Bank Presidents reluctant to make risky loans.

You assertion would make more sense if the financial institutions covered by the CRA and those not covered by the CRA didn't jump in with both feet once they saw that there was money to be made.

[Riverwind]

You assertion would make more sense if the financial institutions covered by the CRA and those not covered by the CRA didn't jump in with both feet once they saw that there was money to be made.

The system broke down in the US because the chain of accountability broke down. i.e. the people approving the mortgages were not on the hook if they went bad because they could sell the mortages as a package to someone else. So the real question is why did the market for securitized mortgages appear in the first place and if you look into the history you will see it was created and encouraged in order to allow banks to meet the CRA obligations without losing money. Without the CRA incentive it unlikely the market would have exploded the way it did or if it did it is unlikely that the politicians would have been so resistent to reigning it in once the risk became known.

[Michael Hardner]

The system broke down in the US because the chain of accountability broke down. i.e. the people approving the mortgages were not on the hook if they went bad because they could sell the mortages as a package to someone else. So the real question is why did the market for securitized mortgages appear in the first place and if you look into the history you will see it was created and encouraged in order to allow banks to meet the CRA obligations without losing money. Without the CRA incentive it unlikely the market would have exploded the way it did or if it did it is unlikely that the politicians would have been so resistent to reigning it in once the risk became known.

I concur that the CRA changes would have initiated more activity in this area, however it's another thing to blame the losses and lack of oversight on the CRA. As for the politicians, they had to pay (literally) when the whole thing collapsed, and they learned as much from this episode as they ever learn.

[Michael Hardner]

Here is s clear illustration of the divergence over 30 years of the record. Note that the problem is not a single scientist ignoring inconvenient data that undermines his conclusions. The problem is the climate science community and the IPCC actually defend this non-science. This example is one of many that demonstrates how climate science is NOT self correcting when bad science happens to support the AGW paradigm.

I found that interesting as well. I am encouraged by the fact that this blogger points to discussions such as the MIT discussion here http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

[bloodyminded]

First you point out I didn't say what I said then you interpret it correctly.

Let's not deteriorate to a discussion of semantics. If you want clarification on what I say then please ask. In the interests of clarity I will be happy to oblige.

The New Socialism

You also know what I mean by "All our activity". I think this is the first time I have had a leftist interpret what I say to be in the singular and not the collective but I get the tact and the implication as well as the condescension.

Exercise some civility, please.

It's not condescending incivility. I'm replying to the words you use. I'm limited by a lack of telepathy. Further, you reiterated it, which is an insistence upon the original claim.

That's not semantics, it's a reply to your (continued) assertions. If you don't mean what you say, why insist to me that you mean exactly what you say???

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

You assertion would make more sense if the financial institutions covered by the CRA and those not covered by the CRA didn't jump in with both feet once they saw that there was money to be made.

It is my understanding that during the boom Mortgage companies sprang up all over and packaged and sold their mortgages to the banks who bought them up and in turn sold them to Fanny and Freddie. The CRA was simply the government tool that fostered the creation of the scenario.

Did you hear what Obama told those fat-cat bankers to do today? "Start Lending money". We'll see how persuasive he is. The banks have huge reserves sitting in the Fed and aren't lending. The government encouraged them to lend to create the housing bubble in the first place. Where do you think the credits came from that the banks created to buy all those mortgages? The Federal Reserve pumped them all up.

Everyone is sitting on pins and needles today to see what the Government and the Fed will do. Obama is spending like a madman with plans for health care and cap and trade. And that brings us to the subject of this thread. If those entrusted with the welfare of a Corporation or century old institution can go so wrong it is not really a stretch to see a few ideological scientists cook the books.

[Pliny]

It's not condescending incivility. I'm replying to the words you use. I'm limited by a lack of telepathy. Further, you reiterated it, which is an insistence upon the original claim.

That's not semantics, it's a reply to your (continued) assertions. If you don't mean what you say, why insist to me that you mean exactly what you say???

Confusing isn't it. There is context, which I would hope you would consider and there can be more than one definition for a word, especially a small word. But here we are stuck on semantics. Let's get off this rail and back to it.

Did you see what Krauthammer had to say or not?

[Pliny]

I found that interesting as well. I am encouraged by the fact that this blogger points to discussions such as the MIT discussion here http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

Prof. Lindzen was interesting. What is at stake with these e-mails is how science is perceived to be done. Very unethical procedures were taken.

[Michael Hardner]

If those entrusted with the welfare of a Corporation or century old institution can go so wrong it is not really a stretch to see a few ideological scientists cook the books.

The difference is that credit risk assessment processes, and the assessed risk and values of the loans being bought were not being published, as they were corporate secrets.

There's only so much that can go wrong with an open process, as we have seen. The problems and issues that have been reported with the data were discussed in papers, and there are more than a few scientists working on these things including those who are skeptical of the consensus.

[Michael Hardner]

Prof. Lindzen was interesting. What is at stake with these e-mails is how science is perceived to be done. Very unethical procedures were taken.

I agree that the primary problem is how science is viewed by the larger population. They tend to look to the media to interpret results. Unfortunately, media such as Fox News overstate things, and the response from the left is to respond with even more overstatement.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Pliny]

I agree that the primary problem is how science is viewed by the larger population. They tend to look to the media to interpret results. Unfortunately, media such as Fox News overstate things, and the response from the left is to respond with even more overstatement.

Some of Fox news is entirely partisan, I agree. For the most part, I find it fairly balanced. They do present another point of view which was badly needed. Canada's media is still primarily left leaning in it's point of view. We need to get out more.

The northern polar icecap is going to be gone in 5 to 7 years. Al has evaluated the science - and that's why Fox is important.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of Fox news is entirely partisan, I agree. For the most part, I find it fairly balanced. They do present another point of view which was badly needed. Canada's media is still primarily left leaning in it's point of view. We need to get out more.

The northern polar icecap is going to be gone in 5 to 7 years. Al has evaluated the science - and that's why Fox is important.

I don't care about the point of view part, what I care about it the badly presented information, and exploitation of the worst aspects of dumb populism. Canada's bad habits of misinformation do take on more of a leftist lean than the US. They take on less of a pitchfork-and-torches angry-male-villager populist tone and more of a concerned librarian wrinkling her nose at everything.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of Fox news is entirely partisan, I agree. For the most part, I find it fairly balanced. They do present another point of view which was badly needed. Canada's media is still primarily left leaning in it's point of view. We need to get out more.

The northern polar icecap is going to be gone in 5 to 7 years. Al has evaluated the science - and that's why Fox is important.

And if you're concerned with the unrestrained spread of stupidity, as you appear to be, then maybe you might see that the solution isn't to spread the opposing flavour of stupidity.

[waldo]

Here is s clear illustration of the divergence over 30 years of the record. Note that the problem is not a single scientist ignoring inconvenient data that undermines his conclusions. The problem is the climate science community and the IPCC actually defend this non-science. This example is one of many that demonstrates how climate science is NOT self correcting when bad science happens to support the AGW paradigm.

yes... the vaunted McIntyre... self-styled slayer of the hockey-stick... it's very clear exactly how McIntyre operates... how McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics by misleading, misrepresenting, quote-mining (badly), falsely characterizing, deceit, etc.

Once again, the point is simple. McIntyre claims that key passages in emails from Folland and Mann refer to the "decline" in the late 20th century portion of Briffa's reconstruction. They evidently do not. You are the one trying to spin by avoiding the real issue I have raised, which goes to the heart of the matter - Steve McIntyre's credibility

[Argus]

I don't care about the point of view part, what I care about it the badly presented information, and exploitation of the worst aspects of dumb populism.

In other words, Al Gore from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

[Michael Hardner]

In other words, Al Gore from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

In a lot of ways, the Al Gore approach to these things bothers me more.

[Pliny]

And if you're concerned with the unrestrained spread of stupidity, as you appear to be, then maybe you might see that the solution isn't to spread the opposing flavour of stupidity.

Forever the extremist centrist.

Something cannot be evaluated without something else to compare it to. "Good" must always have "better" or "worse" for their to be perspective.

As for politics, the closer we get to governing ourselves, the closer we are to being our own masters. Those that wish other people to decide the course of their lives or remove the obstacles and challenges to life for them need to be empowered to be more capable of helping themselves. Those that view other people, the masses more or less, as needy or ignorant and incapable view them as inferior - some may be but the majority that are viewed as inferior are quite capable and can manage their lives quite well. The attitude that people are needy, ignorant and incapable goes a long way in oppressing them and is not conducive to understanding them.

[Pliny]

yes... the vaunted McIntyre... self-styled slayer of the hockey-stick... it's very clear exactly how McIntyre operates... how McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics by misleading, misrepresenting, quote-mining (badly), falsely characterizing, deceit, etc.

You should listen to the climategate debate and hear what Richard Lindzen has to say about the word "skeptic". http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730 Thanks to Michael Hardner who posted that site earlier.

If you are a denier you are not a skeptic. If you fully accept the conclusions of the climate scientists you are also not a skeptic. Science is about skepticism.

[eyeball]

If you are a denier you are not a skeptic. If you fully accept the conclusions of the climate scientists you are also not a skeptic. Science is about skepticism.

Economics is a science. Has anyone compared the minuscule amount of scepticism its taken to confound action on the environment to the gargantuan amount it usually takes to give mainstream economists a reason to question their certainty?

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a lovely video to add to the Copenhagen/Climatati discussion. Socialists and Communists.

Link: http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/14/reds-turn-green-in-copenhagen/

[Michael Hardner]

You should listen to the climategate debate and hear what Richard Lindzen has to say about the word "skeptic". http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730 Thanks to Michael Hardner who posted that site earlier.

If you are a denier you are not a skeptic. If you fully accept the conclusions of the climate scientists you are also not a skeptic. Science is about skepticism.

I do advise people to listen to that forum, if they're open-minded about these things. There are some good questions discussed - both in the science itself, and in the role of science in society, media and so on.

[August1991]

This is an interesting and informative Socratic discussion between Christopher Monckton and a Norwegian Greenpeace member:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE&feature=player_embedded

They are both polite and civilized and even charming.

Edited December 16, 2009 by August1991

[waldo]

You should listen to the climategate debate and hear what Richard Lindzen has to say about the word "skeptic". Thanks to Michael Hardner who posted that site earlier.

If you are a denier you are not a skeptic. If you fully accept the conclusions of the climate scientists you are also not a skeptic. Science is about skepticism.

I believe it was actually Emanuel who had the salient point about the word "skeptic"... besides, Lindzen's a putz. In any case, the terminology is clear, the language applies... there is no contradiction in distinguishing scientific skepticism from AGW global warming skepticism. Scientific skepticism is the norm - is healthy... scientific advancement is predicated upon expanding knowledge and improving understanding. But that's not what AGW global warming skepticism/denial is about... that type of skepticism/denial ignores the prevailing consensus of the world-wide community of scientists, that type of skepticism/denial relies upon vigorous absolute criticism of any and all evidence to support AGW global warming, while, at the same time, eagerly, even blindly embracing any paper, any study, any argument, any editorial, any article, any minutia within 'blog science', that might presume to refute AGW global warming. The two types of skepticism are entirely distinct.

[waldo]

Here's a lovely video to add to the Copenhagen/Climatati discussion. Socialists and Communists.

Link: http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/14/reds-turn-green-in-copenhagen/

do you actually have a 'lovely comment', to go along with your 'lovely offering', of your described 'lovely video'?

[Pliny]

Economics is a science. Has anyone compared the minuscule amount of scepticism its taken to confound action on the environment to the gargantuan amount it usually takes to give mainstream economists a reason to question their certainty?

It's called a science, isn't it.

I believe it to be more of an art.

Some theorists have tried to turn it into a science by devising mathematical formulae and models but in Economics human action is the most important and unpredictable variable. Science attempts to eliminate any human behavior or influence from it's findings which must show empirical evidence. Until human behavior can be predicted for every individual it will not be a science.

The minuscule amount of skepticism it has taken to confound action on the environment is because human behavior has been seen to contaminate the findings invoking reason for scientific skepticism.

Each individual has his own value scale in life and that makes it entirely impossible for economics to devise an empirical and/or mathematical model of prediction. The value preferences of certain individuals regarding Politics and Ideology have tainted the scientific purity of the climate change theory. It is impossible to remove personal choice, value perceptions, personal utility, from Economics since it is based upon those things and it is impossible to know what they are from a purely scientific or mathematical perspective.