75 responses so far ↓

• 1 A Taxpayer // Oct 28, 2015 at 2:03 pm

  There is evidence that the MWP was warmer on a global basis.

  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

• 2 A Taxpayer // Oct 28, 2015 at 2:29 pm

  Chris, I keep telling you that you have to read the whole article and not just see “savings” and “recycling” and think you have your reference. This is talking about the savings using one recycling system instead of another. It says nothing about whether this the least costly way of disposing garbage. At least these are real numbers, just not relevant to the issue at hand. Replacing a costly recycling program with a less costly program does not prove that recycling saves money. In fact, the $1.3 million “savings” does not tell the whole story:

  “But critics of the new system, including newspaper publishers, said the costs shifted onto private industry were much higher in B.C. than in other jurisdictions.”

  And who pays for these higher costs? That’s right, the consumer.

  My apologies to Shoup, how could I get such a household name incorrect. I had two criticisms of your reference – Shoup is the only one who appears to have tackled this problem. No surprise because I doubt if any researchers in urban transit issues spent more than a few minutes on the subject when common sense tells you it is nonsense. Second, his sample size is ridiculously small spread over an extended period of time and geographic location. And then he averages these six numbers and actually makes a claim of 30% of motorists are looking for parking. Do you know what the standard deviation of these 6 numbers is? 23%. Accept this result if you will but not many people have or are likely to take this serious.

• 3 A Taxpayer // Oct 28, 2015 at 3:54 pm

  This is pretty typical of the type of references you and your buddy Chris cite all the time. In this case it’s a book review where the reviewer hasn’t read the book. Of course it would have been difficult because his review was before the book was even published but why would you actually have to read a book to know what was in it.

• 4 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2015 at 6:53 pm

  ” It says nothing about whether this the least costly way of disposing garbage.”

  I figured you would say that.

  http://www.recycleforlondon.com/content/recycling-saves-money

• 5 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2015 at 7:18 pm

  “I doubt if any researchers in urban transit issues spent more than a few minutes on the subject when common sense tells you it is nonsense. ”

  Google shows a couple of hundred citations for “Cruising for Parking”, (the original Shoup paper on the topic) so either a lot of people who are studying the issue don’t know about ‘common sense’ or your dismissive attitude is misplaced and Shoup’s work is considered quite valid by his peers. Here’s a link to the original paper:

  http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf

  “And then he averages these six numbers and actually makes a claim of 30% of motorists are looking for parking.”

  No, he does not make this claim and you are misrepresenting his remarks. As was previously provided for your information, here’s the article that looked at the issue and whether Shoup’s claims hold water. Of particular interest are his remarks in the comment section:

  “…perhaps the best comparisons are the four studies in New York and Los Angeles since 1993, where the estimated share of cars cruising for parking averaged 37 percent. (See Gregory Pierce and Donald Shoup, “Getting the Prices Right: An Evaluation of Pricing Parking by Demand in San Francisco,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 79, No. 1, Winter 2013, pp. 67–81.)?

  http://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/10/is-30-of-traffic-actually-searching-for.html

• 6 Chris Keam // Oct 28, 2015 at 7:26 pm

  “How could anything about automobiles from the 1920’s have any relevance today?”

  Indeed.

  “But the constantly increasing flow of
  motor traffic on our highways, the
  constantly increasing congestion in our
  towns and cities, the mounting toll of life
  from accidents, the rising taxes to meet
  the demand for more paved roads, and
  especially the desecration, in spots almost
  the obliteration, of our fairest landscapes
  by the advertising signs and ugly filling
  stations and cheap refreshment booths
  which have followed in the motor’s wake,
  surely ought to give us pause.”

  – Walter Prichard Eaton
  “The Billboard Curse”
  The Forum, November 1923

  (also, be sure to check out the New Yorker cartoon on pg 3. ‘Solving the Parking Problem)

  and on page 4:
  “Complete figures dealing with
  automobile accidents in 1925 have
  recently been made public. They reveal
  that safety on the highway, or the present
  lack of it, may now fairly be reckoned as
  one of the major problems of the day. Last
  year more than 22,000 persons were killed
  in or by automobiles, and something like
  three quarters of a million injured. The
  number of dead is almost half as large as
  the list of fatalities during the nineteen
  months of America’s participation in the
  Great War. In sixty percent of the cases,
  the person killed was a pedestrian struck
  by a car. Six thousand of these dead were
  children. Moreover, the automobile toll is
  increasing. The 1925 total is ten percent
  larger than that for 1924”.

  Not relevant? Plus ca change mon frere 🙂

  http://americainclass.org/sources/becomingmodern/machine/text3/colcommentaryauto.pdf

• 7 Jeff Leigh // Oct 28, 2015 at 10:02 pm

  “It’s a book review where the reviewer hasn’t read the book”

  No, it isn’t. It was a fact checking on the promotional materials the author sent out himself in advance as part of his marketing campaign. Wouldn’t you expect that if someone was going to distribute good examples of their work, they would pick, well, good examples? And not ones that show them in such a negative light?

  Another reason not to get your science from political commentators.

• 8 Jeff Leigh // Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28 pm

  AT: Thank you for posting this link. It is helpful.

  It doesn’t study global temperatures unfortunately, as it uses only two sites. It therefore doesn’t support your claim. The Pages 2k study linked above used 511 climate archives, and concluded “There were no globally synchronous multi decades hot or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.” Full details in the study.

  Your link does include the statement “The modern rate of Pacific Ocean Heat Content change is, however, the highest in the last 10,000 years”. Interesting.

  Also note that your study is about ocean heat content, calculated hundreds of meters below the surface. The surface temperature is what the graphs you don’t agree with were representing. Perhaps apples and oranges?

  Earlier, you derided climatic reconstructions based on proxies. Now you are using them as references, in this case from seabed core samples, so that is progress.

• 9 Jeff Leigh // Oct 28, 2015 at 10:46 pm

  Mann’s graph, in blue. A more recent reconstruction, both hemispheres, many more proxies, in green. (PAGES 2K, link above). Red is Hadcrut 4.

  The hockey stick is alive and well.

• 10 Lysenko's Nemesis // Oct 29, 2015 at 10:10 am

  I could post references to thousands of articles and publications exposing scientific scams and errors, going back to the Inquisition but some people are either completely washed ad nauseum, or are lining their pockets on the massive green money scam.

  I doubt I can help you.

• 11 A Taxpayer // Oct 29, 2015 at 3:37 pm

  Of course you are right and here is just one from the person who wants to see skeptics in jail:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/backfire-on-the-rico20-and-jagadish-shukla-is-imminent-wagon-circling-climbdown-dissolution-begins/

  The only reason the alarmists have the support they do is money and anyone who denies that is dishonest or naive (which is a polite way of saying dumb).

• 12 A Taxpayer // Oct 29, 2015 at 3:42 pm

  You forgot to mention that the shaded blue area is the range of uncertainty. I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to think that the reconstructions have more precision than they really do.

• 13 A Taxpayer // Oct 29, 2015 at 3:54 pm

  So you don’t need to read the book or even a review of the book to formulate an opinion. And clearly Greg Laden missed the point – Steyn’s book is not about climate change but strictly about Mann’s hockey stick and purposely included quotes from alarmists.

  There are 100+ scientists quoted in the book. Unless you are going to claim they were all quoted out of context, the inescapable conclusion is the hockey stick is crap science. If not, why didn’t a single scientist (or non-scientist for that matter) file a brief in support of Mann’s lawsuit?

• 14 A Taxpayer // Oct 29, 2015 at 3:57 pm

  Chris, if any one took this at all seriously there would be dozens of studies trying to replicate his results. There aren’t. It isn’t a serious line of pursuit in addressing traffic congestion.

• 15 A Taxpayer // Oct 29, 2015 at 4:21 pm

  Well, you found a reference from the current century for a change just too bad it wasn’t from the same continent as it would have had a better chance of being relevant.

  “It costs £580 million per year to manage London’s municipal waste, and landfill costs currently account for just under half of that. Capacity to landfill London’s waste is rapidly declining, with space within London running out
  by 2021, and space outside London by 2025.”

  https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Recycling%20Rates%20Final%20Report.pdf

  Clearly the lack of suitable landfill site makes recycling more economical than dumping but that is hardly comparable to Vancouver.

  But you do make my point for me. They have computed a cost savings by recycling in London and have put it front and center for their residents. Which brings us back to the point I made 3 weeks ago – if we experienced these kinds of savings from recycling, it would be highly visible. If you can find any such statement from Metro Vancouver supported by facts, I would be the first one to support recycling. Now, can you say that you would support another form of garbage handling if recycling was shown to be less economical?

• 16 Lysenko's Nemesis // Oct 29, 2015 at 9:24 pm

  You do, of course, read the New York Times.

  ” …Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill. Prices for recyclable materials have plummeted because of lower oil prices and reduced demand for them overseas. The slump has forced some recycling companies to shut plants and cancel plans for new technologies. The mood is so gloomy that one industry veteran tried to cheer up her colleagues this summer with an article in a trade journal titled, “Recycling Is Not Dead!” …”

  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html?_r=0

• 17 Jeff Leigh // Oct 29, 2015 at 10:01 pm

  AT: “You forgot to mention that the shaded blue area is the range of uncertainty”

  I didn’t forget, I thought it was obvious, but thank you for pointing it out. To build on your comment, it is obvious from a cursory look at the graph that the current measured temperature exceeds even the upper limit of that range of uncertainty. This makes the conclusion that current temperatures exceed those of your fabled MWP, in terms of this study, certain. Refuting your claim even more strongly. You just put another nail in your own casket.

• 18 Jeff Leigh // Oct 29, 2015 at 10:42 pm

  AT: The hockey stick has been reproduced and validated in many subsequent studies. I gave you one link, but if you like I can give you ten more. What’s the point? If you are going to take the science of a political commentator over the global scientific community, there is no hope for you.

  Why are you focusing on Mann’s defamation lawsuit? There were many briefs filed for Steyn. They were freedom of speech briefs. Read them on line. They were in support of a motion to have the defamation case dismissed. Steyn lost that one. He lost the appeal as well.

  Now to the actual case. It isn’t about the science, whatever you would like to think. It is about personal defamation. Briefs from scientists aren’t required, since the defence isn’t claiming that they are speaking the truth. They conceded all of it. The defence stated that Steyn was using hyperbole. I particularly like the part where it says that his comments weren’t grounded in reality. Seriously. So to use this case as a litmus test of the science is pretty funny.

• 19 Jeff Leigh // Oct 29, 2015 at 10:54 pm

  AT: “here is just one from the person who wants to see skeptics in jail.”

  Ah yes, your weatherman hero. Because getting your science from college drop out radio weathermen is so much more reliable than relying on, say, scientists.

  There is nothing in the related civil case against tobacco companies, which the group requesting consideration of a RICO case against Exxon referenced, that is about putting fake skeptics in jail. It is a civil case, not criminal. It isn’t against skeptics, it is a fraud charge, and I don’t know what fake skeptics are selling that would constitute fraud. It is about a company selling a product that they acknowledge causes harm, when they knew that, but lying about it. An oil company in this case. The result with the tobacco case was that they had to stop lying.

  And you call scientists alarmists.

  The reason the denial industry cares is that they could lose a funding source. You were more correct than you realized when you wrote about alarmists, money, and dishonesty. You just didn’t recognize who the alarmists were.

• 20 A Taxpayer // Oct 30, 2015 at 10:24 am

  “”The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action….”

  The letter is asking the Government to initiate a RICO investigation which, as you can see, may include criminal penalties. And there is no shortage of quotes from alarmists from Robert Kennedy to David Suzuki that suggests skeptics should be jailed.

  http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/robert-f-kennedy-jr-wants-to-jail-his-political-opponents-accuses-koch-brothers-of-treason-they-ought-to-be-serving-time-for-it/

  And you studiously avoided the main point of the comment – how much money this alarmist and his relatives are raking in.

• 21 Jeff Leigh // Oct 30, 2015 at 11:20 am

  AT: “The letter is asking the government….”

  Read the rest of the letter. The precedent is the RICO case against the tobacco companies. A fraud case. With civil penalties. More alarmism about putting people in jail for saying dumb things.

  “…how much money this alarmist and his relatives are raking in”

  Seen on the internet:

  “Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies”

  Aided by a small team of deniers operating in fear of being jailed, apparently.

• 22 A Taxpayer // Oct 30, 2015 at 4:17 pm

  Google “jail for climate deniers” and clearly this is not a rare sentiment Come on Jeff, do you agree with Robert Kennedy and David Suzuki that climate deniers deserve to be put in jail? Simple question.

  And what about the $63 million in grants Shukla received over the past 14 years? Don’t you think that might be a teensy incentive to try and shut up any naysayers?

  Don’t make this appear to be a David and Goliath fight between the brave advocates of global warming and the evil oil companies. In 2000 Al Gore’s net worth was $2 million and today it is $200 million. And then there is Tom Steyer net worth of $1.6 billion. Seems he made most of his fortune on coal, before embracing investments in green energy. No doubt you can relate to someone who cashed in on fossil fuels before adopting the green religion.

• 23 Jeff Leigh // Oct 30, 2015 at 6:32 pm

  AT: “Google ‘jail for climate deniers’…..”

  I used a search function on the letter under discussion, as you suggested, and sure enough, not a single result. Surely you knew that. Why do you keep trying?

  I think the problem is that you believe that a website run by Marc Murano is a trusted source. Shame on you.

  Just for fun, read Kennedy’s own words. Warning, exposure of denialist memes ahead.

  http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/01/jailing-climate-deniers-robert-kennedy-jr/

• 24 A Taxpayer // Oct 31, 2015 at 11:36 am

  Surely you know that if the search was to be in quotes I would have suggested “‘jail for climate deniers'”. But here is a good chronology of the various suggestions to silence skeptics:

  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/punishing_climate_change_deniers.html

  You will note that as far back as 2007 Kennedy suggested that “deniers” should be tried for treason. Yes, like the 2014 quote he claims he was only talking about the corporations but you do not try corporations for treason. James Hansen, another star alarmist was not so equivocal in his interview with The Guardian in 2008:

  “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.”

  And are you going to claim Suzuki was misquoted or do you agree with what he said?

  No comment on those that have profited handsomely from advocating for the fight against climate change?

  Come on Jeff, at least give a complete defense of your position.

• 25 A Taxpayer // Nov 4, 2015 at 10:01 am

  Remember this when the inevitable propaganda comes out of Paris about how much China is doing to curtail emissions.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?emc=edit_th_20151104&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=66541609&_r=1