A case is concluded

To mark the occasion of James Delingpole making a complete ass of himself once again by publishing an article in the Daily Mail, which drew this response from the Met Office… As regular readers of this blog will know, I submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission last October regarding David Rose’s similarly repetitious attempts to paint the Met Office (MO) as either incompetent or willfully deceptive. Sadly, the PCC were forced to deal with my complaint because the MO declined to get involved (even though the PCC asked them if they wanted to). I am afraid I got tired of the obfuscatory responses submitted by the Mail on Sunday and told the PCC to just go ahead and make a decision. However, the PCC have said I can publish their decision in the case, so here it is: ——————

Commission’s decision in the case of

Altman v The Mail on Sunday

The complainant was concerned that an article, which reported on new global temperature data, contained inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. In particular, he considered that the article had misleadingly referred to the update of HadCRUT4 dataset as a report. The complainant emphasised that global warming has never been consistent, and was therefore concerned that the article had implied that the data showed that the Earth’s climate had stopped changing, and that carbon dioxide had not contributed to such changes as had occurred. Under Clause 1, the press “must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”. The Commission first considered the complaint in relation to the description of the data update as a “report”. This appeared only in the headline, and was not used to describe the update elsewhere in the text of the article. The Commission noted that it considers headlines in the context of the article as a whole rather than as a standalone statement. This is due to their brevity – they can represent only a limited summary of a potentially complex set of circumstances. The Commission noted that in the body of the article it was made clear that this referred to the update of the HadCRUT4 dataset on the Met Office’s website. Given this, the Commission did not consider that the reference was significantly misleading, as readers were made aware of the precise way in which this new information had been released. The Commission noted that the complainant did not dispute the fact that the new data did not show a significant increase in temperatures over the last fifteen years. Instead, his concern was that the article wrongly implied that climate change had stopped, and that carbon dioxide had not contributed to previous increases in temperature. The article had made clear that there was disagreement between climate scientists as to the significance of the data, and to the potential for drawing major conclusions from it. As such it was apparent from the article that there was a variety of expert opinion as to how the new data was to be interpreted. Furthermore, the Commission noted that in the accompanying commentary, the newspaper had made clear that the plateau in temperatures did not mean that “global warming won’t at some point resume”, had stated that global warming was real, and that carbon dioxide had contributed to it. As such, the Commission was not able to find that the article was in this way misleading. Although the headline referred to climate change having “stopped”, it was clear from the article that this was not necessarily permanent. The Commission was aware of the complainant’s view that the article had contained other inaccurate and misleading statements; however it noted that the complainant had repeatedly declined to specify these, and consequently the Commission was not in a position to comment further. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

Reference no. 124521

Ben Gallop Complaints Officer Press Complaints Commission Halton House 20/23 Holborn London EC1N 2JD Tel: 020 7831 0022 Website: www.pcc.org.uk ————— As I have said in comments on the Met Office blog, I really do think that the time has come for the Met Office to stop issuing rebuttals and take these idiots to Court. UPDATE (15 January 2013): As I have said to Barry Woods in the comments appended to this post… I repeatedly referred the PCC to other websites where all the factual inaccuracies had been explained in detail – such as The Carbon Brief – and made it clear to the PCC that I had much better things to do with my time. In other words, I made a conscious decision not to waste more time on my complaint because it was obvious the PCC was not going to find the Mail on Sunday guilty of any offence (under the Code). However, that does not make the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, or James Delingpole any less guilty of repeatedly publishing very misleading articles…

Advertisements

About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Denial, Environment, James Delingpole, Pseudo science, Scepticism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to A case is concluded

  1. roddycampbell says:

    Well, the PCC really told you off, didn’t they? Slightly surprised that you favour your approach, having read the rather decisive decision above, over sensible Dave at the Met Office who declines to get involved with the PCC over articles like these. Why do you react like a startled bull to the factually true statement ‘Global Warming has stopped’ when it is true that the globe has not warmed for the period in question according to the temperature series? ‘Global Warming has stopped’ /= ‘The theory of AGW is false’ which is what you seem to hear, nor does it mean it won’t likely resume. The long pause, which perhaps will extend another 5 years, even from a very high starting point, is an interesting phenomenon which deserves debate. It may have something to say on climate sensitivity, or on the probabilities of outlying outcomes, at the very least. Calm down.

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks Roddy, I hope you will read and take note of all my other responses here today. However, calming down will only get us all in a whole lot more trouble: The reason people like Rose and Delingpole annoy me is that their scientifically-illiterate attempts to keep going down the up escalator act as a major retardant of public demand for radical policy changes.

      Like

      • roddycampbell says:

        Your reply made me realise we are in the same boat. You say, I paraphrase, ‘the reason these people annoy me is because they may have an effect on policy that I strongly disagree with’. I completely agree with you, that’s the only reason I get annoyed. With people who make idiotic statements that might affect UK and EU policy, statements like ‘we need to decarbonise now, we have 100 months to save the planet’ and pass the Climate Change Act which, if followed, will have a precisely zero impact on whatever happens to the climate. I never got over-excited about idiotic and illiterate environmentalists before because their impact on policy was limited, and it was worth the cost to have a band of excellent zealots out there checking that companies and governments weren’t pulling a fast one. Thousands of crazy auditors. Great. But with warming they are having a serious impact on policy, and a pointless and bad one. What 4 billion people in Africa and Chindia do will determine the climate change, not what the UK or EU do – it’s a global question, and unilateral action is pointless, especially when we are now small minority emitters. So spend money on R&D, on diplomacy. Not on 20:20 or CCA targets which cost hundreds of billions for no climate impact. Please. (The UK can make as many ‘radical policy changes’ as it wants, or the EU. It will have no impact on global temperatures.)

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        Your problem Roddy, is that you have put the cart before the horse. To me, you seem to have decided that environmentalists are all communists in disguise (or enemies of progress at least); and then found evidence to support that notion. Sadly, this is the way all conspiracy theories (such as 9/11 demolition or faked moon landlings) develop. But, as David Aaronovitch has pointed out, conspiracy theories are bedtime stories for people frightened by reality; and/or history written by the losers. However, you are right about one thing, the UK can achieve very little on its own. Nevertheless, rather than saying this as an attempt to shift the blame, I do so as an affirmation of the need for co-ordinated international action – as was done (1) to reverse the damage to the ozone layer by banning CFCs and (2) reduce the affects of acid rain by controlling industrial pollution. Sadly, such co-ordinated international action has not been possible with CO2 because, rather than admit that the post-1750 increase in atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of climate change, the oil industry chose instead (like the tobacco industry before it) to try and dispute the science and discredit the scientists warning us that our addiction is causing us to self-harm.

        Like

      • jpgreenword says:

        Although I agree that Asia’s current contribution to current carbon emissions is HUGE, we cannot forget that carbon dioxide is a very long-lived greenhouse gas. Which means that historical emissions is also of great importance. And when it comes to historical emissions, the “Western World” is most responsible. In addition, if every single country outside of Asia (and Africa) says “we are a minority of emissions”, then nothing will happen! It’s like saying, “I won’t give my $5 dollars to X charity because it won’t make a difference”. Yes it does! I’d also like to point out that their are incredible advantages to de-carbonizing our economies: better health from less air pollution, less environmental destruction from spills, the creation of millions of jobs as we transition to renewable forms of energy and create more advanced energy grids, the opportunity for every citizen to become an energy producer rather than having a few elites who currently produce all of our energy. Finally, I disagree with your statement that the EU’s actions will have no impact on global temperatures. Put together, the EU’s emissions are far from insignificant. Also, if the EU continues on it’s attempts at a “Third Industrial Revolution”, I believe that they will be an example for the rest of us and will inspire us all to make the right choices when it comes to energy production. (Jeremy Rifkin is my new hero!)

        Like

      • roddycampbell says:

        I’m the believer in conspiracy. You blame Big Oil for China and India and Russia refusing to participate. Hmmmm.

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        If you are addressing me, Roddy, I did not blame Big Oil for the reluctance of individual nations to commit to action. This is primarily the result of 20 years of everyone blaming everyone else; and expecting others to act first. What I blame Big Oil for is the misinformation campaign and stunts like Climategate 1.0 and 2.0. I think you need to learn the difference between conspiracy fact and conspiracy theory, starting here: 1. AGW denial – Possibly the greatest ‘false flag’ operation in human history? (10 September 2011); and 2. To all who say AGW is junk science (4 October 2011)

        Like

    • jpgreenword says:

      “factually true statement ‘Global Warming has stopped’ when it is true that the globe has not warmed for the period in question according to the temperature series” But, that is not factually true. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year creating “a trend” of no warming ONLY if you look at the past 16 years. And even then, 2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 1998 according to NASA (and a number of other scientific organizations). People use this false statement in order to make others believe that the warming of our planet has stopped, which it hasn’t. Look at the graph from of longer distance and you will see that warming is continuing and that 1998 is simply an extreme outlyer that gives the illusion of a changing trend.

      Like

      • roddycampbell says:

        Not entirely sure what you don’t understand about ‘for the period in question’. Of course 1998 was exceptionally hot. It hasn’t got hotter since then. It’s stayed at the same hotness. And is predicted to stay at that hotness for the next five years, acc to Met Office. So hotting has stopped since 1998. That may not be a terribly interesting point, if you choose to look at 100 year, 1,000 year or 10,000 year time series. It is interesting to, say, a farmer. It is interesting to climate scientists who are trying to figure out why it warmed over a certain timeframe and not over another. It is interesting to those working on empirically-derived equilibrium climate sensitivity science. So, on balance, it’s interesting. And true, so deal with it.

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        Please forgive me for intervening but… Roddy seems to be ignoring the fact that most of the extra energy trapped by the 40% extra CO2 is warming the oceans and generating more storms and droughts etc. Furthermore, the hiatus in land surface warming since 1998 has not prevented the last decade from being warmer than the 1990s. Therefore, I am afraid that Roddy seems determined to keep going down the up escalator. Furthermore, I think he needs to widen the scope of what he reads; and stop getting his climate “facts” from self-confessed ideologically-prejudiced non-scientists like Delingpole and Monckton.

        Like

      • jpgreenword says:

        The point I was trying to make is that, actually it isn’t interesting because it is an example of choosing specific start and end points in order to attempt to make a point. In this case, the point is that global warming has stopped. Only it hasn’t. I could use the same graph to show that the world has been cooling since 2010, but that doesn’t mean anything either. I recommend you take a look at the animation put together by the people at Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html The Earth is still in an energy imbalance, and will continue to be until our CO2 concentration drops. Sudden spikes and drops in annual average temperature are caused by changes like volcanic activity, La Nina and El Nino. 1998 was a particularly strong El Nino. If you look at the long term trend, you see a constantly increasing average temp.

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        Thanks for that excellent link to the new piece on SkS.

        Like

  2. Lionel A says:

    A case is concluded but the wound is still bleeding.

    Like

  3. pendantry says:

    Amazing that someone can suggest that something is blue (when it’s mostly red) but only when you view it from a certain angle at a certain time of day; and even more amazing that someone else (who holds up a card that says ‘unbiased arbiter’, no less) can claim that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that… Good for you for going the distance on stuff like this, Rick. I wouldn’t have the patience for it.

    Like

  4. Barry Woods says:

    so basically you lost the complaint? I’ve had more success, I complained that the main BBC article about the Met Office story, was misleading and confusing people and as it had been widely quoted (not least the Guardian) it needed correcting. for example, the telegraphs environment journalist repeatable got the interpretation of how much (on av) projected warming there would be by 2017 (the new Met forecast graph/projections) totally wrong.. And I’m pleased to say the BBC did quickly correct the article.. I then complained, the BBC article now had no notification, that the article had been corrected, and that it should also state why it had been corrected (the absence of which, was against editorial guidelines, which Iquoted) I am pleased to say, that this complaint was taken on board, and this correction was also made.. Perhaps having the Met Office, Head of Climate Impacts agreeing with me helped ( I had asked him to comment, and help get the Guardian artcile corrected (which he also did) So an interesting day ( I do have an invite to the Met Office pending)

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Congratulations Barry; good luck with the Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Sadly, however, your pedantism does not change the fact that there is no scientific conspiracy to promote environmental alarmism; there is just a scientific consensus that our failure to decarbonise our economies will cost disproportionately more the longer we delay doing so.

      Like

  5. Barry Woods says:

    Perhaps you should reflect on this: “The Commission was aware of the complainant’s view that the article had contained other inaccurate and misleading statements; however it noted that the complainant had repeatedly declined to specify these, and consequently the Commission was not in a position to comment further.”

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks for visiting, Barry. However, I am not sure why I need to reflect on this at all: I repeatedly referred the PCC to other websites where all the factual inaccuracies had been explained in detail – such as The Carbon Brief – and made it clear to the PCC that I had much better things to do with my time. In other words, I made a conscious decision not to waste more time on my complaint because it was obvious the PCC was not going to find the Mail on Sunday guilty of any offence (under the Code). However, that does not make the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, or James Delingpole any less guilty of repeatedly publishing very misleading articles…

      Like

  6. Demos says:

    Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. I am excited to see that efforts to muzzle those one disagrees with have been adopted in the UK. God forbid that people be allowed to debate. Please continue to add regulatory, legal, and compliance costs to your enemies. That will truly improve society and civilization.

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks for that insight into your world-view, Demos. However, sadly, I think you will find that – with the possible exception of litigation pursued in order to prevent unethical business practices by pesticide and tobacco manufacturers (etc) – it is the vested interests themselves who have done far more to muzzle those who try to bring their misdeeds to the attention of the generally-blissfully-ignorant public.

      Like

      • Demos says:

        So, “the other side does it more” is your defense? That hardly seems appropriate. Reaching for regulatory relief in intellectual arguments seems to be a fatally flawed strategy.

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        To me, reaching for pseudo-intellectual relief in straw man arguments seems to be a fatally flawed strategy. Come up with some cogent argument to support the position of supposed climate sceptics, or go away.

        Like

  7. Demos says:

    The posting was about taking action against a policy opponent in courts. I don’t give a fig about the issue. I believe the earth is warming. I also believe only a bully tries to shut down someone else’s argument using government power.

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      You think I am a bully, Demos, for trying to stop the publication of propaganda and misinformation? I think you confuse “bullying” with the principled objection to the perpetuation of lies. The PCC were unable to take action because unscientific journalists like David Rose are very careful to avoid presenting reasoned arguments with all the relevant facts. They just stick to muddying the waters and impugning the reputation of people and organisations with whom they disagree; and always do so in carefully-worded ways that do not leave them open to easy litigation. With respect, therefore, I think the deliberate attempt to misrepresent the scientific consensus regarding climate change is an issue about which you should care a great deal. The marketplace of ideas is a dangerous fallacy; all opinions are not equally valid and, just as only 49% of the population are better-than-average car drivers, only 49% of the population are better-than-average at understanding climate science. This therefore means that we should respect the opinions of genuine experts when they agree about something like gravity or climate change.

      Like

      • Demos says:

        With respect, It is one thing to object to the perpetuation of lies, it is quite another to use the force of government to shut down the arguments of policy opponents. Surely you can see the mistake in attempting censorship.

        Like

      • jpgreenword says:

        Is it censorship when you are attempting to stop people from printing misinformation?

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        I thank jpgreenword for giving you your answer.

        Like

      • Demos says:

        “Is it censorship when you are attempting to stop people from printing misinformation?” Answer: Well, yes. When you use government to stop people from printing information you are, by definition, engaging in censorship. You may believe it is in a good cause (stopping misinformation), that does not change the fact that it is censorship. All progressives, liberals, and those who care about free and open debate must stand against censorship.

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        Agreed. But propaganda and misinformation must not go unchallenged. All I was doing was challenging (in a distinctly half-hearted way) the repetitive publication of deliberately misleading newspaper articles that question the bona fides of the Met Office.

        Like

      • jpgreenword says:

        Pardon my ignorance, but are there not laws that say that govern media outlets? And are they not responsible for the accuracy of their content? If not, then forget I said anything. However, there is a need for citizens to have facts in hand in order to make sound judgements. And when it comes to something as incredibly important as climate change, the facts are important because the risks are great.

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        You are absolutely right, JP. However, the PCC is infamous for having no power: It is the ultimate proof that self-regulation does not work; and (sadly) our Prime Minister has reneged on a promise to implement the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry… Meanwhile, what seems to have annoyed people like Demos and Roddy is the fact that I concluded my post by calling for the Met Office to start taking people to Court. However, unlike the fake skeptics who try to bully climate scientists into silence, the Met Office is clearly reluctant to resort to litigation to promote real science.

        Like

  8. jpgreenword says:

    Delingpole is such an ass! Sorry I just had to let that out. When every I see him in an interview, I have an urge to hit something 🙂 As for the rest of your post, “thumbs up” for your attempts at keeping the media honest. To quote the movie “Snatch”, you “have the minerals”! Oh, and thank you for the link to the MET office blog. Very good read that.

    Like

  9. Barry Woods says:

    Well you’ve got me to thank for the visitors, I tweeted the press complaint result.. I don’t stop by that often… too many blogs to read.

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks Barry. As I said, I do not think I have anything to be ashamed of (and never expected to win). I hope you are finding the time to keep up with the Met Office blog (I am very impressed by Dave Britton’s carefully considered rebutals to all the emotional nonsense that is being chucked at him).

      Like

  10. roddycampbell says:

    Rick, you said: ‘You seem to have decided that environmentalists are all communists in disguise (or enemies of progress at least); and then found evidence to support that notion.’ – i have no idea where you got that from. Communists? In your mind, mate, not mine. Made up. Some enviros explicitly want an end to economic growth and population controls, those ones I would describe as enemies of progress, yes. ‘Sadly, this is the way all conspiracy theories (such as 9/11 demolition or faked moon landlings) develop.’ – you suggest I am prone to conspiracy theories? And then go on to blame Big Oil for the failure of the world to control emissions? ‘I did not blame Big Oil for the reluctance of individual nations to commit to action.’ er, yes you did, here: ‘Sadly, such co-ordinated international action [eg as for CFCs] has not been possible with CO2 because, rather than admit that the post-1750 increase in atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of climate change, the oil industry chose instead (like the tobacco industry before it) to try and dispute the science and discredit the scientists ….’ I think you need to be clearer about what you’re saying, or at least remember what you said.

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      I see you have (or at least deserve) a PhD in pedantic cherry-picking about what people did and did not say (a.k.a. obfuscation and tactical avoidance of factual criticism)… However, I think I have now explained perfectly well what it was I meant: If not here, I have certainly explained myself very clearly in the posts I provided links to… Sadly, (it seems to me that) you have already decided whom you want to believe; and who you will get your “facts” from… so feel free not to investigate further.

      Like

      • roddycampbell says:

        Are you replying to the right comment? In mine I a) quoted you blaming Big Oil for the failure of international cooperation, which is imho a rather unlikely view, and you denying that you did, which was a little confusing for this reader [What I actually said was “the oil industry chose instead… to try and dispute the science and discredit the scientists” – ML] b) quoted you suggesting, for no reason, that I saw all environmentalists as Communists in disguise, which was odd [When confronted with your apparent refusal to accept the Met Office position on all of this – as does the author of Watermelons (i.e. James Delingpole) – I think my thoughts about you were entirely excusable (and I was not misquoting you as you have me). – ML] In your replies to me you linked to four articles, two on AGW-denial which I didn’t go to because I am not an AGW-denier and not very interested in reading any more explanations about how they are conspiracy theory libertarians duped by the Fossil Fuel lobby and lower IQs, the escalator, with which I am already familiar, and an article by David Aaronovitch which I haven’t got round to reading. I find AGW-denial tiresome. I find discussion of ECS, impacts, policy, interesting. I find the hysteria of ‘100 months to save the planet’ drivel self-indulgent, ignorant, and self-defeating. ‘Big Oil’ and ‘Fossil Fuel lobby’ make me want to shake the speaker by the lapels and say grow up. Claims that the West subsidise fossil fuels can only be made by the numerically and economically illiterate. I wish people would grow up a bit, look at more facts, and recognise that they, not just everyone else, is subject to confirmation bias and stupidity. [The fossil fuel industry IS subsidised massively (i.e. through tax breaks, etc.) – if it were not so unconventional fossil fuel exploration would not be economically viable. They also spent unbelievable sums of money trying to get Mitt Romney elected as POTUS) – ML]

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        I am not going to repeat myself further (but have inserted clarification into your comment) and will start editing future comments if you repeat yourself again. Please read the latest piece on SkS to which jpgreenword has provided a link and – if you are not an AGW denier – then please stop repeating the lie that global warming has stopped (when it has not); and/or trying to make out it alters our understanding of climate sensitivity (when it does not). N.B. If there is no reply button (on third tier comments), please scroll up to the previous (second tier) comment that has one. – ML

        Like

  11. roddycampbell says:

    ipgreenword: The Met Office think it’s interesting. That it warmed faster than models before, and hasn’t warmed for what may become 20 years. Climate scientists find it interesting. And it’s true, from, yes, a cherry-picked startpoint of course, and so isn’t so interesting for the larger question of AGW, but is interesting for climate sensitivity. I’m quite aware of sks and the escalator, and you won’t catch me trying such silly sceptic three card tricks. My original question to our host was why get so excited about a factually true statement, and I said ‘Global Warming has stopped’ /= ‘The theory of AGW is false’. Did you note that the Observer had falsehoods in its leader today http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/no-one-can-deny-global-warming?INTCMP=SRCH on the same subject, the Met Office forecasts, and the nice man Dave from the Met Office had to correct them in the comments? Did that get you and our kind host all excited? I doubt it. Because the (as it happens outright) falsehoods were on ‘your’ side. You should have got excited given your reaction to the Mail, sauce for the goose, right? Misinformation must be corrected? I didn’t get excited, I expected it from the Guardian stable, they are alarmists by commission and omission, as the Mail is often, though not always, sceptical.

    Like

  12. roddycampbell says:

    Rick, am I allowed to point out when you selectively mis-quote yourself, thus changing the meaning? You said international cooperation on emissions had failed due to the oil industry. It’s there in bAltman and white, I said fossil fuels aren’t subsidised. You changed that to fossil fuel industry, different thing. But just like you, I’m beginning to see that you are a changeable creature. The statements ‘it hasn’t warmed for x years according to the global temperature record’ and ‘global warming has stopped for x years according to the global temperature record’ are the same, surely. Would you be happier if I used the former rather than the latter, and why?

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Roddy, I have not misquoted myself or you; all I have done is demonstrate that your position is untenable unless you are an AGW-denier or a conspiracy theorist. Why else would you question the Met Office’s interpretation of the data and/or their rebuttal of misinformation? In responding, please answer my question (or I will assume you want your comments to be deleted).

      Like

  13. Pingback: 16 Years Without Warming? « The Green Word

  14. roddycampbell says:

    Responding to various: LOL, yes, of course it’s censorship. Don’t move to USA, you’d hate the First Amendment. Answering your specific questions, as requested: — You: ‘Why else would you question the Met Office’s interpretation of the data and/or their rebuttal of misinformation?’ — Me: I haven’t. [Repetitious obfuscation deleted – ML] And wind your catastrophic necks in. http://www.iadb.org/en/news/webstories/2012-06-05/latin-america-and-the-caribbean-global-warming,10011.html is a report co-authored by the WWF, hardly AGW-deniers. Take a look, reading behind the scary stuff. Adaptation 1/10 of damage, and 1/10 of mitigation. Adaptation 0.2% of GDP in a region growing at 6%. It’s just an example. [Repetitious obfuscation deleted – ML]

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks Roddy. Please do not feel under any obligation to comment further; as I fear you will only repeat yourself. However, before you go, I would just like to refute your repetitious denunciation of the warning that we have only “100 months to save the planet”… Even organisations such as the International Energy Agency – and previously-skeptical economists such as William Nordhaus – have now admitted that the door of opportunity for humanity to prevent irreversible change is now closing… This is therefore not environmental alarmism – it is the settled view of the vast majority of relevantly-qualified experts: Because it is total (cumulative) CO2 emissions that matter, the longer we delay getting emissions under control the harder it is for us to avoid blowing our carbon budget… NRDC – ‘National Climate Assessment Cements Need for Action on Climate Now’ (11 Jan 2013).

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s