The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Environment]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-08-25 09:43 by Karl Denninger
in Environment , 255 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well now this is amusing....

Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.

The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.

Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly in this column Mann's alleged "hockey stick" couldn't be reproduced without data and formulas he refused to hand over.  Mann sued Ball claiming that Ball had libeled him.

That appears to have been a grave error, as once in court Ball had every right to prove that his statement was not false and defamatory, with one of the defenses, of course, being that what he said was true.

So he filed for discovery and demanded Mann's data and formulas.

Mann refused to comply.

In fact, Mann refused to comply for eight years.  That's right -- this lawsuit has been going on for a long time.  Mann allegedly agreed to comply in 2017 and didn't.  Eventually the BC court (Canada) got tired of the games and entered a dismissal awarding fees and costs to Ball.

So let's recap this.

Mann has never turned over his data and formulas.

Mann has been asked for them repeatedly, and has refused.

Ball repeatedly called Mann out on this to a degree that Mann believed he had been libeled (defamed in writing) and sued.

This entitled Ball to Mann's source data and formulas, because the entirety of Mann's claim rested on Ball making a false and defamatory statement.  Truth is, in nearly all cases, an absolute defense to a libel suit.  The court agreed, and ordered Mann to turn it over.  He failed to do so, repeatedly, but to forestall a summary judgement agreed to turn the data over in 2017.   He again failed to do so and this time the court ran out of patience and told him to go suck eggs, not only dismissing his lawsuit but awarding fees and costs to the defense, which is not typically done unless the court finds that the suit was originally filed under vexatious or otherwise fraudulent pretense.

Mann has claimed he will appeal and that he didn't "really lose."  Losing a libel case and being ordered to pay the defendant's fees and costs is usually considered losing by most people, especially when the other side asserts truth as a defense to your suit, subpoenas your data which, if it indeed showed that you were libeled you would happily turn over as it would assure you of a win in court and you refuse to comply with the subpoena.

But, whether that's actually losing or not is something for you to decide.

The better question is why we have someone employed at a major US University who thinks they can thumb their nose at legal process and remain employed.  Further, one has to wonder whether the University is complicit or worse.

Note that there is no question of jurisdiction (despite the court being in Canada) because Mann was the one who sued originally and by doing so he consented to jurisdiction.

Why is the University open to question as to their complicity?  Because everywhere I've ever worked for other people all my work product is not solely mine; at best I have a joint interest with said employer if I negotiated that in advance of my employment and in most cases the employer owns it entirely because that is the state of employment law by default in the United States.

That is, if you employ me to write computer software to do "X" and I do, the entirety of the work product is yours, not mine.  I have no rights to it whatsoever unless, before I do the writing of the code, I negotiate something specifically covering that instance.

So tell me once again why the University didn't order Mann to comply or simply turn over the material itself?  Is there some "side agreement" here that the public doesn't know about?

I've pointed out multiple times that unlike Mann's "hockey stick" data, which he won't release nor will he release the formulas he used, there are other openly available data sets going back 50 or so years from satellite observations, and multiple other reconstructions going back much longer.  By definition all the other data sets are reconstructions of one sort or another simply because until the age of satellites we did not have 100% coverage of the planet on a consistent basis.

Further, as I pointed out here (and many previous times in these pages) while CO2 levels have increased materially since 1950 or thereabouts the rate of increase in temperature has not tracked same.  The "predictions" in the IPCC "reports" have not verified.  Therefore the projections are wrong -- period.

In addition it doesn't matter if I'm right or Mann is right.  That's because America, and indeed the entire western world, is not where the CO2 emission growth is coming from nor where it will come from in the future absent a genocidal wipe-out of people on a scale never before contemplated in the history of the planet.

Indeed there are roughly 1.3 billion humans without electrical power in their homes today with 300 million of them, more or less, in India alone.  Sub-Saharan Africa has some 40-odd percent of their people living without electricity and roughly half of the generation capacity of the entire region is in one place -- with 90% of that being coal-fired.

These people are not going to willingly submit to living in literal straw huts and crapping at the corner tree forever yet that is exactly the sort of "future" that climate alarmists demand of them.  What's even worse is that the screamers so-called "solutions" are all frauds; when you add up all the energy inputs to make a solar cell suddenly all that "free" sunlight isn't so free and you have to get that energy from somewhere.  The environmental destruction associated with so-called "green energy" is immense and has been intentionally offshored to keep it out of your sight but it cannot be eliminated.

I wonder how Greta will feel if and when she realizes she's been had -- and was nothing more than a cute face used to promote a scam.

Oh, and by the way -- the Amazon fires screamfest is a scam as well.  

Interestingly, when NASA released the satellite image on August 21, it noted that "it is not unusual to see fires in Brazil at this time of year due to high temperatures and low humidity. Time will tell if this year is a record breaking or just within normal limits."

But the fires are old-growth forest burning, being clear-cut for crops?

No.  Most of it is land that has already been cleared for agricultural use and is being burned to clear it of weeds and pests prior to being planted for the upcoming season.  It's normal in that part of world, in other words.

Are forests indeed being cleared in the Amazon?  Yes, but at materially lower rates than 20 years ago.  Like around half or less.  Further, no less an authority than Nature has reported that between the early 1980s and 2016 global tree canopy has increased, not decreased.

Gee, why would a bunch of people lie about something like this?  It wouldn't be both political animus and money, would it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Environment , 266 references
[Comments enabled]  

The screaming petulant child vomits forth:

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - World leaders must prove that they have listened to young climate activists after a year of protests has not led to any progress in the reduction of greenhouse emissions, leading activist Greta Thunberg said on Monday.



With all due respect to Greta, and she's not entitled to much, that she managed to get the world's attention because she's both young and cute means exactly nothing when it comes to authority -- or a demand that people "must prove they listened."

That you're an activist doesn't mean anything either.

You're 16.  You lack the scientific foundation or knowledge to speak with any degree of authority on any such matter.  That others claim there is an emergency and claim that it's backed by "science" means nothing either.  Repeating someone else's screed without critical evaluation just makes you a loud-mouthed teenager.

Virtually all teens are loud about something.  Big deal.

It's my opinion, as a 56 year old who actually does have a fair amount of understanding of the science involved, including gas laws, physics, chemistry and thermodynamics -- along with putting a lot of independent time and study into the underlying data, that this entire "emergency" nonsense is a scam.

However, I freely admit (unlike you), having taken many more trips around the Sun and understanding that my analysis, just as with others although they do not admit to it, contains enough uncertainty that I could be wrong.

Note that the so-called "scientists" who make these claims (1) do not put uncertainties on all their data, (2) don't expose their data in the raw, along with all of their analysis tools, to public scrutiny and in many cases have intentionally destroyed source data, and (3) do not admit that the claimed changes are subject to said uncertainty.  This, by the way, is proof that they're not scientists as the first thing you learn when studying actual science, any science, is that all measurements have an uncertainty and all calculations and thus results of same must carry all uncertainties through from one end to the other, without exception.

But in the end, even though I am convinced that all the climate screaming is a scam it doesn't matter if I'm wrong.  It doesn't matter because the United States, and the rest of the industrialized world isn't the fastest-growing source of CO2 emissions nor do we have the majority of the population of the planet between us.  In fact it's not even close!  Between Europe and the United States we have approximately 1.1 billion of the 7.5 billion humans on this rock at the present time.  Add in the rest of the "modern world" and you get a few hundred million more (e.g. Russia, Japan, Australia, etc.)

Most humans ex-Europe and the US live with gross energy consumption on a per-person basis that is a tiny fraction of those in said industrialized world.

Just as a start since you and the rest of the screamers will not face or acknowledge the math: India alone has over three hundred million people, roughly the population of America, without electrical power!  Over 1.3 billion people planet-wide have no electricity in their homes.

India produces roughly 80% of their power from fossil fuels.  Are you going to try to tell them to turn that off?  Really?  What about the 300 million people in that nation who have no electrical power at all?  Shall they never receive power in their residence?  How about China?  Roughly 2/3rds of their electrical generation is from coal.  In Sub-Saharan Africa only 43% of people have access to electricity with several nations in the region under 25%!  South Africa as one nation accounts for nearly half of the entire region's generation capacity.  Coal generates approximately 90% of the region's electrical power, incidentally.

Unless you intend to murder all these people or tell them they can never obtain an industrialized standard of living their energy consumption and carbon emissions will dramatically rise no matter how much you or anyone else would like it to be otherwise.  Even if the entire industrial world cut its CO2 emissions to zero, which would instantly destroy all transportation and agriculture in the Western World and kill a couple of billion humans through starvation as a result CO2 emissions on a global basis would still continue, after a short pause, to increase.

In other words you, Greta, are a screaming petulant child demanding the impossible short of mass-murder on a scale never before contemplated in the history of this planet -- and there have been many genocidal maniacs over the millennia.  Attempting to prevent the majority of humans on this planet from achieving that which you have enjoyed during your entire childhood and adolescence is the height of arrogance, pig-headed hubris and outrageous aggrandizement of your prissy, entitled youth.

That is the message you should receive from "world leaders", since the majority of them, by far, preside over parts of this rock that do not have any of the things you and your family have taken for granted literally since your first suckle from your mother's breast.

You may be cute and you may have a loud voice, but you lack even a cursory ability to examine the facts based on this arithmetic and set of facts.  Even if you were to spend years studying the underlying science after having gone to college and learned about chemistry through organic (including buffering reactions, which play a major part in this dance of climate on the rock we call "Earth"), gas laws, absorption spectra of various gases, thermodynamics, physics and more -- and having done so you arrived at the same conclusion you have now IT DOES NOT MATTER because not only could you not get anywhere in an airplane to deliver your screed without fossil fuels (which you'd understand the moment you studied the above subjects) and thus said 100% cutoff will not happen but in addition none of the nations and their peoples who currently are not enjoying a western-style standard of living are going to consent to living for all eternity in straw huts, hunting and gathering at subsistence levels while ****ting in the woods.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-07-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Environment , 3766 references
[Comments enabled]  

The debate's over folks.

Back when the "climate researcher" folks had their lab hacked into and their data set and source code stolen I wrote an article on what was in there -- including obvious adjustments in the FORTRAN code that were one way.

Post that incident there was a "convenient" loss of original data -- which made re-examination on an objective basis of much of the so-called "work" impossible.

Unfortunately for the screamers, they didn't get all of the data sets.  There were plenty of them left, and eventually some folks took to actual mathematical analysis of them.

You can read their conclusions here -- but let me just quote a bit of it.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

In other words, and to expand:

1. No, it has not been the "warmest ever."

2. There were more severe "heat wave" incidents in the 1930s, in point of fact, there was a cold period in the 1960s and 70s (which some of us who are old enough remember!) and today's anomalies are approximately equal to that of the early 1990s.

3. These facts including both the hot and cool periods earlier in the 19xx years, fit not only across the United States but globally in the Northern Hemisphere.

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

For starters.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)