Climate-gate in Video!

I was waiting for these to come out. Peter Sinclair's outstanding "Climate Crock of the Week" has a two parter on those darned climate emails that came out a while back. I've posted on these videos before and Sinclair again delivers a very well produced, logical, and clear refutation of Climategate.

Part 1

Part 2


"He said "anus"".

Govt Fail #1,432

Krugman does my work for me. His post today on the problems of voting majority in the Senate says what I would say with just more Nobel prize gravitas.

It was, however, a close-run thing. And the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional.

Amen.

The Real Children's Fantasy

Here's one more children's' fantasy video. We already have Lion, Witch & the Wardrobe, Bridge to Terabithia, The Golden Compass, and all those other generic ones where the bummed out kid is befriended by a talking animal who tells them they are a prince/princess. This new one makes Where The Wild Things Are look like The Wizard of Oz. In this movie the animals don't talk but are instead all dying and the kids no longer wonder if they'll make the basketball team but if they'll even have food to eat or potable water by the time they're old.

The Right Move

Deglobalization is on. Commence the head-spinning of all mba's and biz students still wet behind the ears who have been chomping through theory after theory on the almighty-ness of globalization.

The basics:

There's also a greater appreciation on the part of Western firms that cheap labor isn't the be-all and end-all. Businesses have learned in the past two years that the longer the supply chain, the more possibilities there are for disruptions—from flu viruses, geopolitical disturbances, and spikes in energy prices. While China is still the world's factory, in an age of volatile demand, some companies have realized that manufacturing closer to home is more efficient, even if production costs are higher.

Cut out the 7000K production line that would make Alexander the Great blush and, voila, you have a local economy. Feels great to pay people who know, right?

1 Percent Doctrine

Friedman has lost a little luster in my eyes with his giant home in Maryland but he doesn't continue to provide spirited argument for massive, unconditional action to prevent climate change. His post today compares America's over the top, precautionary strategy on terrorism to it's terribly slack and unhurried pace to combat climate change.

The set-up:

“According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

I would say it's well over 1 percent.

And now for the prestige:

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

Yeah, a nuke attack would be bad but it'd be mostly regional in scope and it's negative effects could be mitigated over a time span more suited to the humans who have to live through it. Climate change has a good chance of being permanent and a 100 percent change of affecting every living thing on earth on a timeline longer than most humans can comprehend.

The Nail in the Coffin

I haven't posted about the "Climategate" email thingy because frankly "it's a non-starter." (Actually you should read that link because it discusses the story more in depth). I've decided to post on it via request by one of my readers, I do have one, and because I found a satisfactory response to "Climategate" that should be the one that our "news" outlets take considering the nature of how the emails came to light, a.k.a., theft.

Here's a piece in full (because it's short) from my favorite Russian doomer, Dmitry Orlov:

I have been trying not to write this blog post, but in the end I couldn't resist. I know full well that I should just ignore this Climategate nonsense, but since what I have to say is quite short, I'll just go ahead and say it.

Update: For the past hour or so I've been busy rejecting comments that attempt to draw a false analogy between Climategate and Watergate. Um, no, this one is about science. Unlike administration or politics, science is done in the open. Every significant finding is published and subject to peer review. By definition, then, there is never anything important to "leak." Incorrect results and invalid theories are disproved and invalidated as a matter of course, ideally prior to publication, because scientists are skeptics who jealously guard their reputations. You are supposed to already know all this, so if any of it is still unclear to you, then please be sure to read point 4 below, and, unless you also happen to be cute, furry and affectionate, there will be no cat food for you.

1. The UEA emails were stolen. Data theft is a criminal activity. Use of stolen data is a criminal activity as well. People who get paid for publishing articles that are based on stolen data are dealing in stolen goods. This is no different from selling a house that you built using stolen materials.

2. Smearing some one's reputation based on lies is called libel. To defend oneself against the charge of libel, one generally has to present evidence to prove that one's statements are in fact true. Stolen data is not admissible as evidence.

3. To avoid charges of complicity, we should all try to avoid aiding and abetting people who do such things. For instance, it seems like a bad idea to let them use public airwaves and to publish their materials. Barring them would not constitute censorship, since one has to have the legal right to do something before it can be censored. This is no different from barring stolen goods from a marketplace.

4. Finally, there are the people who listen to those who are making libelous claims based on stolen data, thinking that they are valid points. This is, of course, pretty stupid of them. But how tolerant we should be of stupidity is an individual choice. For instance, my cat has no concept of cause and effect, which makes her do some really stupid things, but on the other hand she is cute and furry and affectionate. But I am glad that she doesn't have an opinion on climate change, because that might have made things a bit awkward between us.

These reasons should just about kill "Climategate" as a news story or even more importantly, as a "great unearthing" of some devious scientific conspiracy. Ethically they details of the emails are not reportable and scientifically the claims inside the emails are of nothing that hasn't been discussed in greater depth and with better documentation elsewhere.

Crop Failure Phase, Crop Failure Phase Compl...

I am routinely finding farm news as fascinatingly horrifying as a car crash. It's bad news but I can't look away. It's December 1st in Iowa and the corn harvest is only 87% complete.

The reasoning for the delay:

"Periodic rains, some shortage of grain drying capacity on farms and at grain elevators, and spot shortages of propane for drying, have prevented us from closing the books on the 2009 harvest," he adds. "But for many farmers at least the end is now in sight. Hopefully, those who spent part of Thanksgiving in a combine will not have to spend Christmas worrying about crops still in the field."

It's been a very mild and sporadic fall winter, atleast in Wisco where I live. An abnormally cold summer followed by a 3 week drought in September and a wet, mild October, November has kept corn growth down and has post-poned harvesting. Farmers should consider themselves lucky that they haven't even seen the first snow of the year yet. Snowfall in the Madison-area has been above normal the past two years. I would expend this trend to get worse as climate change continues. Then we're all really f-ed.

Famine, Pestillence, Etc

Bloomberg.com (not some hippy site) states that grain production in China will decline by 37% by 2050.

The crops affected would include wheat, corn and rice, Zheng Guoguang, head of the China Meteorological Administration, said in an article published on the agency’s Web site yesterday. Research shows that for every degree warmer the atmosphere becomes the key growing period for rice to develop properly will be shortened by an average of 7-8 days and by 17 days for the winter wheat crop, Zheng said. “Yield and quality will drop accordingly,” he said.

How is this bad? Let me count the ways. Starvation: with the 2nd largest population continually unable to feed itself there will be lots of famine related deaths. Or this could lead to the 2nd horseman, War: where an angry, nuclear China has nothing better to do than attack other nations which is a standard human reaction to desperation. And don't forget Economically. Yes, the biz folks who fear caps on carbon emissions because it'll cut into profit and growth will find less pockets available to buy their products (or make their products in China/Walmart's case) and then the agribusiness would be hurting too. Bloomberg interviewed people in a town hall and this was the average reaction.

So there's something in climate change for everyone. What's your part?

Support the EPA'ers?

Soldiers die. It's part of the job description. When they get called to duty there is a good chance they will be put in a situation that will lead to their death. Same with firemen, police, etc. Yet, the people who die don't really have any say on what they go to die for. Could be to retaliate against a homeland assault or to advance a wealthy elites access to resources. But they die nonetheless and we feel bad. Their sacrifice makes us ashamed of staying safe behind our 50" TVs. So we give them carte blanche as far as our tax dollars and support is concerned for better or worse.

Yglesias asks what if we had that same view for our other govt organizations?

And if you think about a comparable situation with the civilian bureaucracy, you’ll see that things are very difficult. It’s not a serious problem if a Republican president pursues a course that senior career officials at the Environment Protection Agency believe are destroying the planet. Nobody says we need to “support the Civil Rights Division litigators” or “give the social services workers the resources they need to finish the job” of fighting child poverty.

Instead of "Support our Troops" yellow ribbon bumper magnets how about a recycle sign magnet with "Help the Folks Who Help Us Drink Clean Water: EPA". It doesn't roll of the tongue as well but gives us something to think about.