Berkeley Results

Just before we switched the blog over, I mentioned preliminary results from the Berkeley Earth project. This project, led by climate skeptic Richard Muller and funded by the eeevil Koch Brothers (and including Saul Perlmutter, who won this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics), was determined to do the most thorough analysis of global warming data yet. As I said then:

This is actually a pretty staggering and thorough piece of work, although it’s not entirely complete. You can read Ronald Bailey for a summary. They looked at over 39,000 temperature stations (4-8 times what anyone else has used). They carefully investigated the assertions of Anthony Watt, who has noted that many weather stations are located close to heat sources (conclusion: yes they are, but no it’s not causing the warming). They took random samples from the data to see if they could reproduce the measured trend. And they keep finding the same thing, only more reliably than any of the more hyped climate scientists.

At the time, they were doing a preliminary analysis of 2% of their data. They’ve now finished the full sample:

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 C since the mid-1950s.

Analyzing temperature data from 15 sources, in some cases going back as far as 1800, the Berkeley Earth study directly addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.

On the basis of its analysis, according to Berkeley Earth’s founder and scientific director, Professor Richard A. Muller, the group concluded that earlier studies based on more limited data by teams in the United Sattes and Britain had accurately estimated the extent of land surface warming.

This is the temperature study we’ve been waiting for. I’m under no illusion that it will quiet the conspiracy theorists. But in a reasonable debate, this would put to bed talking points about Climategate, weather stations, normalization and heat island effect. Their analysis agrees almost completely with both HadCRU and NOAA and NASA. All the data are available from their website — one stop shopping for those who keep claiming, incorrectly, that the data are not available. The four papers they are publishing address a variety of other related issues.

It also demonstrates how important skeptics — real scientific skeptics — are for this debate. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of the hockey stick didn’t disprove it in the end, but they made the result far more reliable. And Muller’s skepticism has now made the temperature data five times more robust than it has ever been.

One last note before my points disappear in an AGW comment shitstorm: this should also shut up some of the liberals claiming the Koch Brothers are the quintessence of evil. They helped fund this study and have made no effort to interfere or bury the results, despite the serious implications for their business interests. Of course it won’t silence them. Religions can survive without God, but not without the devil. And the secular religion of progressivism needs its Kochy devil, even if they don’t quite fit the role.

OK. Fight nice now.

Comments are closed.

  1. Retluocc1

    Thanks for this Hal. Now that it’s firmly established that, yes, the Earth has been warming up, we can move on to questions like:

    1) Is the warming due to human activity, natural terrestrial phenomena, extra-terrestrial phenomena (not aliens, just off-world), some combination of these, and what portion is attributable to which of these?

    2) Will the effects of this warming be – on balance – good, bad, or neutral for humanity?

    3) Can humanity affect this warming trend either positively or negatively (if warming is good, maybe we can enhance it)?

    4) Assuming the warming is bad and we can affect it, will any action we take be more or less harmful (in all senses) than the warming itself, or more or less harmful than finding ways to adapt to the warming?

    I for one am VERY glad that the “warming isn’t happening” line of argument has been dealt another blow.

    Thumb up 2

  2. sahrab

    The questions and skepticism have not been, for the most part, whether the Earth is warming.

    Its whether :
    (*) Man has caused it, and could possible reverse it
    (*) its natual (non-man made), and its out of Man’s hands

    This (thread topic) article does not address this, and only lends to more skepticism

    Thumb up 3

  3. AlexInCT

    Way to flog a dead horse Hal. Please however point out who claims that since the planet has an optimum temperature, any warming is the fault of man. The fact that there is warming, or cooling, is not the problem: it’s the people that have told us that the settled science blames man. What you are pushing with this study is the equivalent of saying that man is responsible for the ocean level rising because water, when not frozen or boiled, is wet. Whoopty-doo. Let us also not forget that the only solutions from the watermelon AGW cultists is constantly to demand bigger more powerful government that confiscate more of other people’s money to buy themselves luxuries they want to deny the peasants. Watch that be the same conclusion when we find out that temperatures start dropping sooner than later.

    Thumb up 4

  4. Kimpost

    I understand that AGW isn’t a popular subject around here, so I’ll largely skip it. I would like to say, however, that there’s a mountain of evidence supporting the A part of the expression. Human influence is paramount.

    If someone figures out a way to discuss that without resorting to either idiocy, or a JimK intervention, I’m all ears…

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    I understand that AGW isn’t a popular subject around here, so I’ll largely skip it. I would like to say, however, that there’s a mountain of evidence supporting the A part of the expression. Human influence is paramount.

    Made up shit doesn’t count, and most of this stuff blaming man is made up.

    If someone figures out a way to discuss that without resorting to either idiocy, or a JimK intervention, I’m all ears…

    Not really interested since it isn’t going to end well.

    Thumb up 3

  6. Miguelito

    If someone figures out a way to discuss that without resorting to either idiocy, or a JimK intervention, I’m all ears…

    Good luck with that. I’ll be over here, not holding my breath.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Seattle Outcast

    And so it is. But that’s not the real point. Also, it may be quite a bit cooler in 50/60 years – will we have to go through another round of “global cooling” BS as the cool/warm cycles catches up with us?

    Thumb up 1

  8. JimK

    Hal, I saw your tweet about this.

    Koch-funded, Muller-led Berkeley Earth team has final results confirming that AGW is real.

    That’s simply not true. In fact, the two page summary has a specific statement that says:

    What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions.

    Once again, my objections is two-fold. Part one is a basic objection to the idea that the anti-AGW side is anti-science, when we are in point of fact agitating for MORE science to be done, whereas the AGW side is famous for using phrases like “the science is settled” and misrepresenting findings in support of a decision that has already been reached. That is not in service of testing a possible theory.. You were a little guilty of that today. AGW is not proven. GW seems to be. If science and fact are paramount, then that is the most we can definitely declare.

    Part two, and I think you and I have previously agreed about this point, destroying massive chunks of the world economy on what might not be anything we can actually affect is not something I want to see. Especially given how precarious that shit is right now.

    What we need is a hell of a lot more science. Less Al Gore-ish BS and less posturing and a lot, lot, lot more science.

    As a point of order was re: this argument going around and around…let’s not do that. If you have something to say in a reasonable tone, let’s do that. If you just want to call names and bait each other…no. Not today.

    Thumb up 11

  9. Hal_10000 *

    Two points to make here and I’ll try not to get too far into this.

    1) We’ve had two years of climate-gate-based skepticism specifically about the temperature record claiming that CRU was fudging or faking their data. Watt’s criticisms of climate stations are dragged out every time someone goes through a list of reasons why AGW isn’t real. Now everyone wants to say the temperature record was never in dispute? Baloney. Rick Perry specifically referenced climategate in a recent comment.

    2) The temperature record is a reason why AGW is a favored theory. Solar influence or cosmic rays would produce a pattern in the temperature record that is simply not seen. Berkeley’s results confirm the basic shape of the temperature record, which supports but does not prove AGW.

    The scientific method does not work by poking a little hole in a theory supported by many facts and claiming you’ve disproven it. You have to come up with a theory that better explains the data. Right now, there isn’t one. Earth’s orbit and solar activity match the data far worse than AGW.

    Again, proving AGW does not establish that liberal solutions are necessary. But it seems the prudent thing — the conservative thing to start acting as if this might be a real danger.

    I’ll throw the question back. I’ve said what you’d need to do to show me global warming is fake — establish a theory that better fits the data with a different causative agent. So now you tell me — what would you need to accept the AGW theory?

    Thumb up 1

  10. Dave D

    Again, proving AGW does not establish that liberal solutions are necessary. But it seems the prudent thing — the conservative thing to start acting as if this might be a real danger.

    That’s just bullshit, Hal. The conservative thing ito do is NOT to rush in and wreck the world economy to fix an unproven or unsolvable problem. That;s how liberals (and you?) think and is irresesponsible at best, imo.

    Thumb up 5

  11. Mississippi Yankee

    I understand that AGW isn’t a popular subject around here, so I’ll largely skip it.

    Yet your entire comment says nothing but it’s AGW.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Mississippi Yankee

    My eyes can not look at the letters AGW without my mind thinking Al Gore Warming. A character fault I guess.

    And as this report shows the earth has been warming since the 50’s yet some of the very same AGW criers now are the same people/scientist that touted Global Cooling in the mid 70’s. Were they lying then or now?

    Disingenuous much?

    Thumb up 1

  13. Hal_10000 *

    Dave, have you read anything I’ve written on this? I specifically inveighed against economy-wrecking ideas. The conservative thing is to invest in research.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Hal_10000 *

    some of the very same AGW criers now are the same people/scientist that touted Global Cooling in the mid 70′s.

    No they’re not.

    MY, this is one of the reasons I’ve come to hate this subject. We’ve argued this one to death and I keep having to retrace the same steps. Just read what I’ve said here.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    The alternative theory grabbed some headlines because of a potential Ice Age. But it was never consensus science.

    Front page blurb and full article in TIME. It was all over the TV and every national and regional papers. It was pre- internet, uncle Walt on CBS and many people took all that bullshit at face value. It was fear mongering at a national level.

    Hal I’m 62, I was a socially conscious teen then. I was there, in that time. You on the other hand… seem to have literature from AGW theorists.

    My earlier question was to them, now it’s to you too. Disingenuous much?

    Thumb up 2

  16. Hal_10000 *

    Watch Bjorn Lonborg’s documentary “Cool It!” The interview the actual scientist who came up with the global cooling hypothesis who confirms everything I link above. Actually, that should be watched anyway as Lonborg has a lot of conservative solutions to AGW.

    You also ignore my second point — global cooling was 40 year ago, before almost all of the climate data. Global cooling was not a predecessor to global warming; it was a competing theory that accepted CO2 warming was real but though aerosols were a stronger effect.

    Thumb up 0

  17. JimK

    Without going too deep, more science. I need to see a lot more science, and with none of the dissembling and obfuscating and assumptions of the current crop of “scientists.”

    I need to see evidence that previous warmings were *substantially* different and that this cycle of warming – which I concede is happening – is not part of a natural phenomenon over which we have no control. WHich means, essentially, since you can’t prove a negative, I need someone to prove it *is* part of a natural cycle.

    Anyone doing THAT science? I’m not holding my breath. As a rule, the research always follows the money available for that research. Don’t forget, I have two research scientists in the family, I know well how the grant system works. :) There’s no money in AGW skepticism. Yet.

    Barring that, I need to see specific and exacting science that conclusively demonstrates that the ONLY cause for global warming is human activity. Then I need to know, with real fact, not “the world is ending” hype, just what that warming will really mean, and how much is reasonable to spend to combat it. After all these steps have been taken? Then I need to hear what the hell any of us are going to do about China.

    After all that…maybe I would support some economy-destroying measures. Mostly ones designed to get humans off the earth permanently and into space to colonize things.That’s a two-fer…we lessen the laod on the earth and we get into space, which we should be doing anyway.

    Thumb up 3

  18. JimK

    In fairness to Hal, conservative and conservation are supposed to be damn near the same thing. If AGW is real – IF – then it would in fact be a conservative position to fix it. We are supposed to be stewards of nature and save what we can as we use other aspects of nature to advance civilization. IF AGW is the real threat, combating it doesn’t violate first principles in my mind.

    Thumb up 0

  19. JimK

    That’s my “big-picture” problem with AGW as it is today. It’s just today’s excuse the same players are using to grab and concentrate power over others.

    Thumb up 5

  20. Hal_10000 *

    To an big extent, I agree. That’s why I blog about this on conservative forums because we need to wrench this debate away from those assholes. If I wanted everyone to agree with me on this, I’d blog for Daily Kos or something.

    That’s one of the reasons Algore needs to stop being the spokesman for this. In the 80’s, the government needed to take over our economy so we could compete with Japan (gee, Al, how’d that work out for Japan?). In the 90’s, it was the environment. Both time, the concern might have been legitimate but his solutions were the same — more government, less freedom.

    I’m not 100% convinced of the science myself. I’d say I’m 99.99% convinced the planet is warming. I’m 85% convinced that it is different from any previous natural warming and it’s man made. I’m about 50% convinced this is a danger though how dangerous it is is very uncertain (which I wish the Left would admit).

    My preferred solution at this point is to (1) unshackle the economy by streamlining regulation and taxation — it’s hard to innovate in this environment; (2) reduce the corporate income tax and replace it with a carbon tax — make fossil fuels a little less competitive; (3) shift federal funds from researching specific technologies – usually backed by powerful special interests — into peer-reviewed grant research through DOE and NSF; (4) a huge push to stop industrial methane emissions. Economy-destroying measures are the last thing we need to do. Our economy has to be healthy to make the kind of technological revolution we need. And I don’t see this as a “break glass in case of emergency” situation. Can you imagine if the financial crisis had hit after we passed cap-and-trade? Ugh.

    We don’t need government to tell us to use efficient technology. Our cars and home appliances are vastly more efficient than they used to be. CO2 emission in the US has held steady during the latest booms and fallen during the recession.

    The truth is there’s not a lot we can do about this right now. That’s why these treaties all have goals of doing something 50 years from now. But it’s important to at least admit the problem exists.

    Thumb up 1

  21. AlexInCT

    Note that so far ALL the people that are objectively looking at the results of the study are saying is that they think the temperature trending in the last 200 years is looking accurate. As we have pointed out, that’s neither proof that AGW exists and is responsible for this change, nor anything for the cultists to tout they have a victory of any kind here. That’s because the last 200 years in the grand scheme of things is absolutely too short to mean squat. And yet, the cultists are all telling us this has vindicated their belief that man IS the one responsible for this.

    A lot of what they talk about is prefaced on the belief everything was perfectly in balance before man decided to use energy to reshape the shitty world these cultists love to romanticize, and that there had been absolutely zero significant change, until man started the industrial age and evil capitalism. What happens if they had an honest and accurate way to look at the 200 years before the last 200 years, before the industrial revolution happened, and find the same or a bigger rise manifested? And what about the 200 years before that? Of course we already know they have fudged that information repeatedly to fit their agenda. We all know that temperatures have varied, and done so substantially in the last 1000 years of recorded history. Greenland, today mostly covered under ice, was a fertile green land during the days of the Vikings, according to their own writings and the fact they called it green land. They must have had SUVs and coal fired electric plants back then too if all warming can be attributed to man as these luddites do.

    I applaud this study for using the scientific method to validate findings. However, I caution them that they need to do the due diligence to keep this all on track. The cultists are desperate, and their agenda to globalize government and control the serfs by controlling access to energy is faltering, and we all know how desperate people act.

    Thumb up 2

  22. AlexInCT

    In fairness to Hal, conservative and conservation are supposed to be damn near the same thing. If AGW is real – IF – then it would in fact be a conservative position to fix it.

    Again, assuming the big “IF”, which I simply right now find zero evidence for, what if “the fix “means reverting to living as nomads of 5000 years ago and wiping out 90+% of the world’s human population? And why is warming bad? I certainly wouldn’t mind milder winters and the savings from not having to pay ridiculous amounts of money to keep warm, even if oceans do rise. What I however will never condone and will actual go to war over is the plan the collectivists have. I for one do not want to be more of a slave to the big government elite than I already am. No false security masquerading as benign rights promised will ever make me believe that these assholes will do anything that won’t eventually devolve into what we saw in the USSR, Mao’s China, North Korea’s Kims, and other such collectivist paradises as Cuba and Venezuela. After all, that IS the agenda/cure for the problem: control the masses. Fuck them and their bullshit.

    Thumb up 3

  23. Dave D

    Agree with alex. Conservatives don’t rush off to change things without proof. Regardless of what Hal says, he is (here) suggesting that the next step in validating his religion has been achieved. What next? I can’t think of anyone I’d trust with that call if the answer is anything other than “gather more data and study the problem” for the (far?) future. It’s a complex problem and the solutions, as alex indicated, MAY involve killing off (generationally through birth quotas at best) lots of the population and drastically changing the way we live and our quality of life. And the proof of the remedy would not be realized for a few generations at least. I woudl want just as much study done on the effects of a few degree golbal waming, as there may be nothing we can do about it?

    Thumb up 5

  24. JimK

    And why is warming bad? I certainly wouldn’t mind milder winters and the savings from not having to pay ridiculous amounts of money to keep warm, even if oceans do rise.

    Well, first of all, raising the temperature of the earth is INSANELY complex and affects every living creature and every non-living substance. For just one example, raising the temperature of the oceans means trillions and trillions and trillions of joules of excess energy that has to go somewhere. We have no way of accurately predicting just what this closed system will do will a massive influx of spare energy.

    Doesn’t matter why it’s getting warmer…the earth warming past a certain (very tiny) threshold could be radical.

    BUT.

    We do not have the science in place to accurately predict that yet. What we have are models that seem to be dramatically flawed.

    Anyway, the point I’m making is casually brushing off the idea of the temperature of the entire earth rising is a serious mistake. THAT is anti-science, IMHO.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Mississippi Yankee

    In a comment earlier I mentioned being around during the Global Cooling crisis. But at that time I was already a voting, productive member of society in my mid 20’s.

    It was during the the hundreds of UFO sightings in the mid 60’s that I was a socially conscious teen.

    I really should be better at keeping government bullshit stories separate at my age.

    My Bad

    Thumb up 3

  26. AlexInCT

    We have no way of accurately predicting just what this closed system will do will a massive influx of spare energy.

    I think the big problem we have right now is precisely that these people model the oceans and the atmosphere as closed systems when they are not.

    Doesn’t matter why it’s getting warmer…the earth warming past a certain (very tiny) threshold could be radical.

    Define “radical”. I for one see this manifested in the fear that things change and some things die. It makes me laugh my ass off whenever some moron cries and agonizes about some animal, plant, insect, or something or another being threatened with extinction, because it shows me how little they really understand that science they tend to pretend they so favor. The fact is that nature is a fucking cruel bitch: life adapts, or it makes way for some other life that can deal with whatever “radical” change has happened. The estimates of how many forms of live have gone extinct since the first amino acids combined into more complex living organisms range in the multiple trillions.

    Man was not around for even a microscopic fraction of those, and anything attributed to man these days doesn’t amount to much more than statistical noise in the grand scheme of things. For a life form that is intelligent, we sure seem to be driven totally by emotion on this issue. That’s the reality of life. The strong and most capable of adaptation survive. Climate change is more of the same. The same applies to any life anywhere. It’s why I laugh my ass off whenever I hear these people’s representation of what they would like life to be. It’s never going to be like “Avatar” or “The day the Earth stood still”, and a lot more like “Independence Day” – without the cheese computer virus saving our ass part – because that’s the nature of life.

    We do not have the science in place to accurately predict that yet. What we have are models that seem to be dramatically flawed.

    HERETIC! Burn him at the cross!

    Don’t you know that the science is settled? The church of AGW has told us so!

    Anyway, the point I’m making is casually brushing off the idea of the temperature of the entire earth rising is a serious mistake. THAT is anti-science, IMHO.

    Well Jim, what would you then use as the global calamity that only your wealth redistribution, big collectivist government controlling all aspects of life, and self enrichment schemes that our new AGW elite hope to ride into power & fortune, to fleece the masses with then? After all, people are not going to get emotional enough to give up their freedoms and fall in line unless they think the end is nigh. Fuck this sounds like we are discussing the bible’s Apocalypse doesn’t it? It’s not a coincidence that the true believers are all about that.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    MY, this is one of the reasons I’ve come to hate this subject. We’ve argued this one to death and I keep having to retrace the same steps

    Yep the whole thing is pointless at places like this.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Retluocc1

    It makes me laugh my ass off whenever some moron cries and agonizes about some animal, plant, insect, or something or another being threatened with extinction, because it shows me how little they really understand that science they tend to pretend they so favor. The fact is that nature is a fucking cruel bitch: life adapts, or it makes way for some other life that can deal with whatever “radical” change has happened.

    ^THIS^

    Thumb up 0

  29. Retluocc1

    The similarity is that during the ’70s there were some people advocating for active management of the Earth’s albedo (by spreading soot on the polar ice caps I believe) in an effort to comabt the spectre of global cooling. There is a similar rush by some people currently to “do something” about global warming! This is the very thing that you are against.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    No even remotely similar.
    That’s just more of the same ignorance that permeates this and every other thread where AGW is mentioned. It was the same at Moorewatch forums (where there is an 86 page thread chock-full of people putting their ignorance on proud display, over and over and over and over again). Why people go to right wing blogs for reliable climate science information is beyond my comprehension.

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    Also, Judith Curry was a co-author. Anyone paying attention knows that she’s FAR from being part of ‘Team Science’. She was the sole climatologist.

    “Although the results of the analysis aren’t particularly surprising relative to previous analyses, I think the BEST project is very important given the importance of the surface temperature data set and the problems that have been associated with the CRU and NASA data sets, not to mention their disagreement. The BEST group is comprised of some extremely distinguished scientists (including Nobel Prize awardee Saul Perlmutter), and this topic has benefitted greatly from the examination of this problem by physicists and statisticians who were prepared to take a fresh look at this problem.

    I am honored to have been invited to participate in this study, which I think was conducted very well”.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-surface-temperatures-released/

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    destroying massive chunks of the world economy

    Is that ‘settled economics’? ;-)
    We don’t have to, particularly if action is taken sooner rather than later. If it’s later, then yeah, no doubt.

    Thumb up 0

  33. richtaylor365

    CM, O/T, but congrats on The All Blacks winning the Rugby World Cup. Did you see the final? I hear all you Kiwi’s are going absolutely nuts over this.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    Hey RIch. Thanks. It’s been an insane 6 weeks here. They promoted this event (and won the rights to it) on the concept of “A Stadium of Four Million”, and there is no doubt that it exceeded all expectations on that score. We’ve had a pretty shitty last 13 months, with the mining disaster and earthworks killing 200 and then the recent/current oil spill. But I’ve never seen anything pull everyone together like this tournament did (horrible example, but I’ll bet – for a few weeks at least – 9/11 had some similarities). Even people who don’t like rugby got into it. Almost every game was sold out (even games like Georgia v Romania) and not only that but the crowds adopted teams and really supported them when NZ wasn’t playing. Everyone actually bought into it all, which was astounding to a cynic like me (apparently 75% of the population over 5 years old watched the NZ v Australia semi-final). I enjoyed it all much much more than I thought I would. I wasn’t planning on going to any games (too expensive and I’m more of a cricket and football person myself) but I ended up going to 3 matches, including a quarterfinal at Eden Park (our main ground, about 10 mins from home and a ground I drive past every morning to get to work). It was unlike anything I’d ever seen.
    And, much like the America’s Cup, it’s provided the impetus to do the next stage in improving the waterfront and infrastructural capacity of Auckland. Which has obvious benefits far beyond that 6 weeks.
    Yeah the win itself was wonderful (especially being the best team since 1987 but managing to screw up every tournament in-between). It was probably even better that we were ‘meant’ to really win well in the final but the French played fantastically and we only got there by the skin of our teeth. I didn’t bother taking the kids to the parade yesterday as I knew it would be madness(250,000 people by some accounts).
    So the pressure is off the All Blacks finally. Now we can poke the English about their football (1966 was the last time they won) and the South African’s about their constant choking in the cricket world cup.
    Probably the most interesting thing is that before the tournament we were all told (and understood) that the tournament is really too large for us, and that we were very lucky to get it, and that we’d never be likely to see it here again. However we made up for a lack of numbers and commercial margins with raw passion for the actual sport, so they’re now backing right away from that suggestion. The next one will be in England in 4 years and it’ll make a shitload more money but it won’t be embraced in the same way this one was.
    We’re hosting the next Champions Trophy (field) hockey tournament and then we have the next Cricket World Cup (in 2015). I’m really really looking forward to those.

    Anyway, the climate of despair certainly changed here over during the last 6 weeks. The real problems we have are still there, but people are feeling a little more positive (especially now we can see summer approaching fast). Amazing what sport can do, considering how ultimately unimportant it is.

    Thumb up 1

  35. richtaylor365

    I did not realize that the French were such mortal enemies and your history together in other world cups, how sweet to beat them now. I watched some of the highlights of the later rounds on the rugby world cup site.

    I always root for the host nation in world sporting events and Olympics but in reading about New Zealand’s woes in past world cups, I knew it was going to be huge. It’s also nice that you could go see some of the matches live. Me and my girlfriend (now wife) were living in LA during the 1984 Olympics, we went to several sporting events and enjoyed every one.

    The monkey is off your backs, now go have an Emersons.

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    It’s the epitome of getting that monkey off one’s back. Of course everyone can still argue “you can only win it at home”, but at least no other nation has won it more (it’s now NZ 2, Aussie 2, South Africa 2, England 1). Now if we can win again in 4 years (less pressure) we’ll go to 3, and show we can do it on foreign soil.
    The Olympics are awesome. I got to some in Atlanta in 1996. Didn’t manage to get across to Sydney in 2000 though unfortunately, and missed Athens by a year. My major wish is to get to a Football World Cup though. Would LOVE to go to Brazil in 2014 (a friend is planning to go) but not sure I’ll be able to swing it.
    Yes they are our mortal enemy indeed – in rugby and……um, the nuclear testing issue (there was a little bit of disquiet at Marsden Wharf being opened up for fans over the weekend given the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior there),
    Amazingly, we were given 2 tickets to the England v France quarterfinal the previous day when we bought a tent (at 50% off no less) at a sports shop. They were one of the big sponsors and must have had an allocation to give away. When I say ‘we’ I mean my wife. We’re pretty convinced the manager wouldn’t have shown as much generousity if I’d been there….;-) I kept saying we should go back the following week and buy some tennis balls and ask for semi-final tickets…..

    More O/T stuff – today was my eldest’s first day of school. He seemed to be handling it really well when we left at 8.45pm. My wife has just texted to say he was in tears when she picked him up half an hour ago, but we suspect that’s much more about tiredness than anything. I’m pretty knackered by 3pm on any given day ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  37. richtaylor365

    today was my eldest’s first day of school

    Very cool, memories

    My kid just got his driver’s permit last week so now every day after school he wants to go drive someplace and practice, as if I didn’t have enough gray hairs. Today was his first day on the freeways………………and we lived to tell about it.

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    Hahaha, sheesh. I still have nightmares about driving around some parts of California (L.A. in particular, although I don’t recall San Fran being too much fun, particularly driving around for hours trying to find a place to stay and having to find our way to a long-lost relative’s place in Concord – it was Mardi Gras).

    Thumb up 0

  39. richtaylor365

    What a cool video, that is why we are sports fans, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. It does not get any better then that.

    Of course, here in America, when the home town wins a sports championship, the locals go out and riot, set stores on fire and burn police cars. I like the way you guys do it better.

    Thumb up 0

  40. richtaylor365

    I seriously considered sending you some cash so you could ship me one of their jerseys, but I figured accusations of racism would inevitably pop up and it wasn’t worth the aggravation.

    Thumb up 0

  41. AlexInCT

    Of course, here in America, when the home town wins a sports championship, the locals go out and riot, set stores on fire and burn police cars. I like the way you guys do it better.

    I object to that statement Rich. CERTAIN locals behave this way. They almost always are also the ones that look for every opportunity to steal from others because work is for idiots.

    Thumb up 0

  42. Retluocc1

    CM – I think you missed my point.

    There was limited concern about global cooling in the 1970’s (the link you provided says as much). Some – meaning not all – people with concerns about the cooling suggested a possible solution was to spread soot on the polar ice caps. That is also a fact.

    Fortunately, scientists were more sober back then, and the idea was quickly rejected for multiple reasons. First, it wasn’t feasible on a large scale. Second, there were very probable detrimental side effects to the plan. Third, a similar affect sould be created by removing reflective pollutants from the atmosphere by better emissions controls. Fourth – though related – the removal of those pollutants had effects above and beyond the changes to albedo.

    The SIMILARITY I speak of is between the ill-advised soot plan then, and the current advocacy of some people now to adopt policies with known adverse side effects (carbon-trading schemes, carbon sequestration, etc.) in an attempt to combat global warming. The difference is that the side which says – a la Lomborg – “Hey, this is a problem but your solutions are worse,” doesn’t seem to be winning the day as they did in the 1970’s.

    There are some steps that governments and industries can take which will be beneficial – or at least not harmful – even if it turns out that global warming is not caused by humans at all.

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    1. No scientists back then supported a plan to spread soot.

    2, There is clear evidence that a significant number of scientists strongly support measures to curb further climate change effects.

    So, no similarities at all. This is an example of opposites.

    scientists were more sober back then

    ??
    You’re suggesting they are more drunk now?

    The difference is that the side which says – a la Lomborg – “Hey, this is a problem but your solutions are worse,” doesn’t seem to be winning the day as they did in the 1970′s.

    They didn’t “win the day” back in 1970’s. And they are not the same people. And the extent and understanding of the science is not even comparable. And the “solutions” aren’t comparable either. And not all policies put forward are ill-advised. They’re just not consistent with certain ideologies.

    Lomborg has modified his position. He announced his agreement with “tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change” and declared global warming to be “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”.

    There are some steps that governments and industries can take which will be beneficial – or at least not harmful – even if it turns out that global warming is not caused by humans at all.

    Absolutely. No question that they “can”.

    Thumb up 0