Watts Up with abusing DMCA takedown actions

Deltoid reports that Anthony Watts from a climate denialist site has filed a copyright claim against a Youtube video that critiques his work (more info and the video is at DeSmog). Watts incorrectly claimed that "Google agreed that complaint was valid and removed the video." Google removes Youtube videos automatically when these claims are made.

Watts also launched a very long attack on the video and peripherally mentions his justification for the takedown notice by saying it used "photographs and graphics from my published book “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”. He provides no details.

The book cover is shown in the video, which is indisputable fair use and exempt from copyright claims. Just because a photograph appears in Watts' book doesn't mean he owns the copyright, which likely belongs to the photographer. If the source is the US government then there's no copyright claim as the US government generally asserts no copyright to its content. And regardless, use of a small amount of information from Watts' book for purposes of critiquing it is fair use.

Watts has no justification for his attack, as may be seen from the fact that he hasn't attempted to take down the reposted Youtube video by DeSmog.

One additional wrinkle: the video author, Peter Sinclair, could post a "Counter Notification" to Youtube saying he violated no copyright. If Watts fails to sue Sinclair within 10 business days, then the video can go back up. Seeing as DeSmog has reposted it though as a separate video, I expect the whole thing will fizzle out with a fair amount of egg on Watts' face.

UPDATE: More data: for whatever reason I'm comparing Watts' book (in pdf form that he links to) to the video. In addition to the book cover, there's a pic of Watts that's from the book. There are some screen shots of surfacestations.org website, but that's both fair use and not Watts' claim. There are two graph at 2:35 shown for seven seconds from the book used to describe the book (repeated once later in the video for a few seconds); and a two second screenshot of a half-page at 4:37. That's all I could find. What a crock.

Gates-gate: my two bits

On the whole Henry Louis Gates getting arrested thing:

1. The problem with life experiences is you can't run a control portion of the experiment. I remember getting hassled by a cop once as a young man, for getting too close to a film crew near the Lincoln Memorial. I pointed out a group of three white people who were even closer, and the officer told me to worry about myself instead. Had I been black, I might have thought it was racism, but instead it was just a stupid cop on a power trip. Of course if I had been black, maybe he would've arrested me instead of just throwing his weight around.

2. While Gates has an obligation as a prominent authority figure to keep his cool, the person who was the professional in that situation was the policeman. All the officer had to do was to walk away from the house of the grumpy old man who was yelling at him, but instead the cop went on a power trip. Sounds stupid to me.

Does the David Victor study condemn most offsets?

Something weird is going on: all over the climate blogs you can read claims that Stanford's David Victor (sometimes together with Michael Wara) has estimated somewhere from one third, one-half, to two-thirds of all carbon offsets under the Kyoto CDM fail "additionality" and do not cause true additional emission reductions. For example, here:

Program Director David Victor said the upcoming study will question the effectiveness of using offsets as a substitute for a safety valve approach to limit the cost of carbon credits. In addition, Victor said it will show that "between a third and two thirds" of emission offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) -- set up under the Kyoto treaty to encourage emissions reductions in developing nations -- do not represent actual emission cuts. Victor is developing the analysis with Stanford University's Michael Wara.

Okay - where's the study? Victor and Wara produced this paper a month after the press release above, but I don't see where the third to two-thirds ineffectiveness is in it. Am I missing something, or is this part of the over-blown anti-offset issue?

Anyway, I'll be off soon for a week or so. Have fun, everyone.

UPDATE: Worth noting that even the Wara-Victor study, while very anti-offset, supports the creation of a Climate Fund to reduce emissions in developing countries, and "Perhaps, with time and attention to creating the necessary monitoring system, the Fund could even yield compliance credits for its donors that would be fungible with allowances in cap-and-trade systems." (Page 21.) Sounds like offsets to me.

UPDATE 2: John Mashey points out in the comments that the one-third to two-third quote might refer to offsets for HFC-23, which originally accounted for over two-thirds of offsets and dropped to about one third in 2008. Victor and Wara say payment so exceeded the cost that it created perverse incentive to create and capture HFC-23. I think John's probably right about where this comes from, but I don't think it's a defensible quote based on the paper. All they do is speculate that useless HFC-23 was created and then captured without ever proving that a significant percentage of HFC-23 was useless, let alone all of it was useless. They even admit on the same page (p. 11) that developing countries did vent HFC-23 prior to the CDM, so the capture would satisfy additionality as to those emissions.

A good test of this argument would be whether total HFC-23 production increased after the CDM mechanism was established. Absent a substantial increase, I don't think the quote's justified. My guess, FWIW, is the quote was in an earlier draft but that the authors decided late in the game that they couldn't justify it and then pulled it out.

Idea of the month: cell-phone delayed response for drivers

My idea is that cell phones should allow drivers to hit a button that would put an automatic one- or two-second delay in transmissions to and from the the speaker, like what used to be the case for international phone calls.

As long as people will use phones while driving, even hands-free versions can be very distracting. A two-second delay slows down the pace of the conversation, allowing the driver to increase the amount of attention paid to the road. It also provides a subtle hint to the person at the other end of the line that the driver needs to concentrate on the road, so the other person can also slow down the conversation, or even offer to call back later.

I read somewhere that children in a car are just as distracting as cell phones, but adults aren't - the implication was that adults understand when to allow a driver to concentrate on driving. Maybe this idea would also help.

The baseball stats wizard jumps into climate betting

Nate Silver of baseball and political statistics fame has a climate bet of sorts up. Sick of denialists who point to occasional cold weather in their hometown as a reason that warming isn't happening, Nate offers the following:

1. For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
2. The challenge proceeds in monthly intervals, with the first month being August. At the end of each month, we'll tally up the winning and losing days and the loser writes the winner a check for the balance.
3. The challenge automatically rolls over to the next month until/unless: (i) one party informs the other by the 20th of the previous month that he would like to discontinue the challenge (that is, if you want to discontinue the challenge for September, you'd have to tell me this by August 20th), or (ii) the losing party has failed to pay the winning party in a timely fashion, in which case the challenge may be canceled at the sole discretion of the winning party.

The two questions I have for climate bets I consider are 1. will winning the bet provide substantial evidence in support of the winner's position and against the loser's position; and 2. is my side likely to win. I'd say Nate's offer fails the first test and probably passes the second. Weather in any one location over a short period of several months tells you almost nothing about whether global climate change is real.

As to winning, Nate is betting current temps against historical average, and because the US has warmed from climate change, odds should be slightly in his favor. On the other hand, his potential betting opponents can look up long-term forecasts for their region. While not highly accurate, I'd guess a place with a forecasted cold autumn could go below average. But Nate's the stats wizard, not me, so I guess he thinks the odds are low, or he has already checked long-term forecasts for the entire US and thinks he's safe, especially since he's closing the bet period in two days.

All in all, an okay method he's using to shut down some stupidity, but not a bet I'd do myself.

The link between Sin City, Tropic Thunder, and Pineapple Express movies

All of them featured a lead actor in physical combat with a much smaller opponent. Does three make a trend? Anyway, I like the idea that the hero of the story isn't such a triumphant fighter that he always goes up against the odds.

Another welcome development I think I've noticed is more movies without a gratuitous sex scene. If it's an integral part of the movie, fine, but otherwise I'm glad the studios are dropping it.

All three movies were pretty good, by the way.

India commits to binding emission limits; no one cares; everyone still demand Indian emission limits

Via Eli, I learn that sometime before eight months ago, India unilaterally committed to greenhouse gas emission limits:

Even though there is no legal obligation on India in this respect, the Prime Minister of India made a commitment that India's per capita emissions will at no time exceed the average of the per capita emissions of developed, industrialized countries. We have thus accepted a limit on our emissions and at the same time provided an incentive to our partners in developed countries to be more ambitious. The more significant their reductions of emissions, the lower the limit we would need to accept for our own.

Two points: 1. India has committed to do more to limit emissions than the developed world, especially more than the US, because for the foreseeable future the US will have worse per-capita emissions than the average industrialized country. 2. Because India isn't responsible for the legacy emissions that have increased CO2 levels 30% so far, it is taking on more than its fair share by making this commitment.

Why this isn't better known is beyond me. Maybe if it got worked into Copenhagen agreements then it would help reduce attention to the denialists.

Two other items worth attention: first, an interview with a carbon capture and sequestration expert. I hadn't realized China was paying so much attention to CCS. That's a hopeful sign, if it actually works in the end. I still think that CCS could be the sweet spot in climate solutions by being the least painful way to limit emissions, and by combined with biofuel power, a way to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. If it works.

Finally, 14 Things I Love and 6 I Hate About Waxman Markey is an excellent piece that's being cited a lot. I disagree with the rabid offset hatred, but more about that in some other post.

UPDATE: The Indian commitment dates to June 2008 from their National Action Plan on Climate Change.

Looking in the mirror, seeing some hypocrisy....

I've noticed a change in some of my attitudes to federal politics as the Democrats take charge and the Republicans fester in minority status. Clearest example is in presidential appointments - my current attitude is the president should be allowed to appoint any reasonably competent person he wants on his team, and let subsequent elections decide whether the president was right. That wasn't my attitude though when Alberto Gonzalez was up for the Department of Justice.

So, what to do. In retrospect, Gonzalez doesn't satisfy the reasonably competent test, but we didn't quite know that back then (or I didn't, anyway), so I can't wiggle my way out with that excuse. I think I'm right now and was wrong back then. Let's hope I can keep my principles when a Republican finally becomes President, hopefully not sooner than 12-16 years from now.

Judicial appointments are another matter - they're for life and they're not part of any president's team, so Congress should carefully vet them. I don't see any way to eliminate the politicization of the judiciary though. Obama has tried to reduce politicization and introduced an element of chance by not expressly asking Sotomayor her opinion on abortion laws, although he can make a fairly decent guess. But on judicial appointments I'm happy to see politics carried out, in part because there's no real alternative.

Filibusters are the other potential hypocrisy for me, where I'm now happy to see the Democrats threaten ways to get around the 60 vote requirement. In my defense, Republicans have nearly doubled the number of filibusters and used loopholes themselves when they were in charge. Maybe I'm not completely guilty here (but probably not entirely innocent of my own accusation).

(Edited for clarity.)

Mixed-bag NY Times article on whales

Very long NY Times Magazine article on whales being sociable with humans, mostly our local gray whales in their non-local nursery lagoons in Baja Mexico. One important piece of information I got out of it was that whales escaping from sonar and other underwater explosions show evidence of the bends because of their rapid ascent to avoid the sounds. While my view, that highly intelligent animals should be treated as if they have rights, is a minority position, there's a strong societal consensus that we shouldn't cause unnecessary pain to animals. The bends can be extremely painful in humans; we don't have any reason to assume it's better for whales.

Another interesting piece of information was the implication that only some gray whales, the "Friendlies", were sociable in the Baja lagoons while the rest kept their distance. Understanding which ones interact and which don't could go a ways towards explaining their behavior. Finally, the article pointed out that the whales weren't getting food from people, so it's not the usual reward system involved that tames wild animals. It's fascinating behavior.

Unfortunately though, the rest was quasi-New Age speculation that kept a veneer of scientific respectability by being posed as questions rather than stated as assertions. One example was when the author asked the main scientist being interviewed whether the whales' sociability showed "forgiveness" for past violence directed at gray whales (only token numbers have been hunted in the last 60 years). The scientific response should have been "your guess is as good as mine," but instead she says:

“Those are the kinds of things that for the longest time a scientist wouldn’t dare consider,” she said. “But thank goodness we’ve gone through a kind of cognitive revolution when it comes to studying the intelligence and emotion of other species. In fact, I’d say now that it is my obligation as a scientist not to discount that possibility. We do have compelling evidence of the experience of grief in cetaceans; and of joy, anger, frustration and distress and self-awareness and tool use; and of protecting not just their young but also their companions from humans and other predators. So these are reasons why something like forgiveness is a possibility.

Oh well. And this'll attract attention to the Baja lagoons, where I was hoping (selflishly) to visit sometime soon. Oh well. Maybe we can sort out the New Agey stuff and still be concerned with protecting whales and interacting with them.

UPDATE: Fresh Air interviews the article author and the main scientist, unfortunately not providing much useful information. They did add that only a small number of boats/captains are allowed to approach whales, which would reduce the riskiness of the whales' behavior.

Since not much science is being provided, I'll try a bit of speculation instead: polar bears are sometimes known to play with dogs instead of killing, avoiding, or ignoring them. My understanding is that these are seal-eating bears stuck on shore until winter ice lets them get out to sea, and they go a long time without eating. With no responsibility to feed themselves, they revert to immature play behavior, with dogs as playmates substituting for the bears' mothers and siblings.

The parallel to the whales is that the mother grays don't feed in the nursery lagoon. Other than feeding the calves, they have nothing to do but engage in play, and the humans are interesting creatures to play with.

Reasons to adopt climate-obstructing blogs

I regularly monitor and leave comments on one conservative blog, Tigerhawk, that periodically posts "information" suggesting climate change isn't a problem. The main blogger there says he's not a denialist, but he reposts claims from WattsUpWithThat and other nonsense sites that support the denialist position. I can't keep up with WattsUp but this gives me a chance to respond to claims that are sufficiently appealing to those types of folks that they're spreading around the blogosphere.

Anyway, I think it's a good idea to adopt blogs like TH. Dedicated denialist blogs like WattsUp are useless - no factual knowledge will influence them, but blogs like TH that only occasionally attack climate actions are more likely to change their focus away from climate when they see their sources get refuted. It might help that in TH's case, the main blogger is actually respectful of critical commenters, so maybe it would be hard to find similar conservative blogs. But it might be worth checking out.

Focusing on super-polluters sounds fine to me

Andy Revkin points to a proposed climate solution in PNAS focusing on reducing carbon from high-emitters regardless of where they live. From the PNAS article (includes Robert Socolow as an author):

We present a framework for allocating a global carbon reduction
target among nations, in which the concept of ‘‘common but
differentiated responsibilities’’ refers to the emissions of individuals
instead of nations.... We then propose a simple rule to derive a universal cap on global
individual emissions and find corresponding limits on national
aggregate emissions from this cap....For example, reducing
projected global emissions in 2030 by 13 GtCO2 would
require the engagement of 1.13 billion high emitters, roughly
equally distributed in 4 regions: the U.S., the OECD minus the U.S.,
China, and the non-OECD minus China. We also modify our methodology
to place a floor on emissions of the world’s lowest CO2
emitters and demonstrate that climate mitigation and alleviation
of extreme poverty are largely decoupled.
....
National responsibilities are derived by summing the excess emissions of all ‘‘high emitter’’
individuals in a country—‘‘high emitters’’ are those whose
emissions exceed a universal individual emission cap. The
scheme does not specify how any nation meets its responsibilities.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds like another way to describe a per-capita emission allocation - not that it's a bad thing, I think per-capita is the only fair way to go. The advantage might be in the marketing - focusing on super-polluters tends to disarm the status quo defenders.

In some ways this approach would discriminate against developed nations that have controlled their population growth and will continue to accept immigrants from other nations. On the other hand, legacy emissions from the last 150 years aren't addressed, so it might even out.

The authors note a trade issue: "By imputing national emissions to individuals, we neglect embedded carbon in exports and imports, a component that is relevant for countries with
large shares of trade in their economy.... a complete scheme suitable for use in negotiations would need to take them into account." I think that's one reason why the tariff component in the Waxman-Markey legislation is a good idea (along with the importance of using international agreements that aren't treaties to move forward on climate).

Prediction for 2010: Obama will use Don't Ask Don't Tell in the campaign

My prediction is that Obama will finally move on Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2010 as an election-year issue, both to energize gay-rights supporters and to paint conservative opponents as placing their prejudices ahead of national security.

And no, just because I'm usually wrong in my political predictions doesn't mean I'm always wrong in what I predict.

Rafsanjani chooses wrong side - bad news for Iran

There were two opportunities for a good outcome in the short term for Iran: that security forces would split or side with protesters, forcing a compromise or overthrow of the regime; or that former president Rafsanjani, a political opponent of Ahmadinejad and Khamanei, would use his chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts to remove Khamenei and compromise with protesters.

The security forces never split, and Juan Cole reports the bad news that's been ignored elsewhere:

Rafsanjani has clearly decided to defer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on
handling the outcome of the elections, and has come out as critical of the crowd
politics and occasional turbulence they produced. As a multi-billionaire and man
of the establishment, he may well have been frightened that the massive street
rallies for Mousavi a week ago signalled a danger to the status quo, which he is
attempting to preserve.

Rafsanjani doesn't want the increased repression of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, nor potential revolution. Looks like he's chosen sides.

Sadly, change in Iran will likely have to take some time now. Troublemakers in Iran will have the upper hand for a while, and so will potential troublemakers in Israel who want to start a military conflict.

For your edits: new wiki article, "History of climate change science"

I've put up a new article on wiki, "History of climate change science," covering the history of scientific developments from late 1700s to 1988. What I wrote is really just an abbreviated history of the science of carbon dioxide and climate science - a lot can and should be added about water vapor and other gases. Please jump in and make improvements!

I'm hopeful this article will be less contentious than other climate articles, while still making clear that climate change wasn't something invented by hippies to advance their socialist plots.

Volokh Correction #25: there already is a national energy efficiency standard

The Volokhs have been on jihad against legislation to fight the climate change they generally acknowledge to be a real problem, and I haven't been able to keep up with their nonsense. Here's one sample though: Jonathan Adler is horrified that something he claims is a national energy efficiency building code will result.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers already works to develop energy efficiency standards, and the legislation could put some incentives behind adoption of revised standards. Many local building codes already apply state and national standards.

This is a typical, delayist nothingburger of a critique.

You'd think it would be easy to find the text of the Waxman-Markey bill....

(UPDATE: so it passed 219-212, Grist calling it one more than the 218 minimum needed to pass (that doesn't sound right to me, but whatever). Regardless, I'd like the enviros who think it's too weak to support to explain how they would both strengthen it significantly and still get a majority. Next is trying to get 60 votes in the Senate. I'd be pretty amazed to see even something as strong as this version make it all the way through.)

I think there's some wrong information about the Waxman-Markey bill, like this opposition message from the Climate Crisis Coalition:

ACESA's Major Flaws:

1) Weak cap. ACESA's cap on greenhouse gas emissions represents reductions of only 1‑4% below 1990 levels by 2020, far less than climate scientists deem necessary.

2) Offsets further weaken the cap. ACESA overwhelms its own cap by allowing two billion tons of dubious "offsets" annually, with up to two‑thirds from international sources which could allow U.S. emissions to keep increasing until 2040. ACESA's offsets provisions have been further weakened by the latest compromise: transerring EPA oversight to the Department of Agriculture and excluding indirect impacts of biofuels production.

3) Fails to put a meaningful price on carbon. The weak cap combined with offsetts, would result in a price on carbon far too low to produce the changes in energy use ncessary to avert climate catastrophe. Free allowances to utilities and energy intensive industries further mute the price signal needed to shift to a low-carbon economy.

4) Trading Combined with "subprime" offsetts will lead to speculative bubbles. ACESA's trading provisions would create a volitile $2 trillion carbon market with unregulated derivatives that could crash financial markets again. Linking trading systems internationally would lead to even larger opportunities for speculation, gaming and fraud.

5) Weak Renewable Energy Standard. ACESA's Renewable Energy Standard (RES) is watered down to just 15% by 2020, barely greater than "business‑as‑usual." Furthermore, ACESA defines "renewable energy" to include dirty sources such as waste incineration.

6) Handouts for the coal and oil Industries. Through free allowances and a hidden utility tax, the coal industry would receive approximately $150 billion over the bill's lifetime for "deployment" of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology that presently doesn't exist and may never materialize. If feasible, CCS would require far more mining, transportation and burning of coal to produce electricity. ACESA would also give approximately $24 billion to oil refiners under the pretext that the world's most profitable industry needs still more financial assistance.

7) Pre‑emption of EPA Authority. ACESA would pre‑empt EPA's authority to regulate sources of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, while also overriding stronger laws at the state and regional levels. By disabling this regulatory backstop, ACESA ensures that its failure as climate policy will be catastrophic.

I commented at Island of Doubt:

#3 and #4 are contradictory - if the price is low, how can it be a $2 trillion market?

#6: "If feasible, CCS would require far more mining, transportation and burning of coal to produce electricity." What's this supposed to mean? CCS is a big question mark, but if it works it could be the sweet spot in minimally changing our economic systems while evading climate impacts.

#2 and #7: My understanding is the EPA retains control over non-farm offsets and under the bill can still impose new climate change regs over everything except coal plants. If I'm right (and I'm relying on secondary sources here) then either these guys don't know what they're talking about or are deliberately overstating their case.

The problem is finding out what the current language says. The Thomas guide has it when it came out of committee, but the latest deals aren't included. This Grist article says "The biggest flaws environmental organizations have identified in Waxman-Markey include the removal of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act," but elsewhere I've seen the removal is only over coal plants. Actual information would be useful.

I wonder if the congress reps tomorrow will know what they're voting on. (And yes, I think they do need to pass it, even with significant holes.)

UPDATE 2: found this (and if that link stops working, this one might work):

" ``PART C--EXEMPTIONS FROM OTHER PROGRAMS

``SEC. 831. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.

``As of the date of the enactment of the Safe Climate Act, no greenhouse gas may be added to the list under section 108(a) on the basis of its effect on global climate change.

``SEC. 832. INTERNATIONAL AIR POLLUTION.

``Section 115 shall not apply to an air pollutant with respect to that pollutant's contribution to global warming.

``SEC. 833. HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.

``No greenhouse gas may be added to the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112 unless such greenhouse gas meets the listing criteria of section 112(b) independent of its effects on global climate change.

``SEC. 834. NEW SOURCE REVIEW.

``The provisions of part C of title I shall not apply to a major emitting facility that is initially permitted or modified after January 1, 2009, on the basis of its emissions of any greenhouse gas.

``SEC. 835. TITLE V PERMITS.

``Notwithstanding any provision of title III or V, no stationary source shall be required to apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit under title V, solely because the source emits any greenhouse gases that are regulated solely because of their effect on global climate change.''."

So my Clean Air Act knowledge is rusty, but criteria pollutants have to have plans for their reductions, so that's off the table. New coal plants could be regulated (I think) but old coal plants can't.

Iran and American perception

I haven't had much to contribute about Iran. I hope things turn out well, while fearing it could be another Burma. A colleague of mine is Iranian-American, and she emigrated back to Iran last summer to work on environmental issues there. I get occasional emails about what's going on, and hope she's okay too.

As to the "Obama should take the side of protestors" meme from the right, I think it's a matter partly of how one thinks American involvement in Iranian politics would be perceived in Iran. If you think the Iranian public would perceive American involvement as instantly friendly and non-oppressive, then it would be foolish to not weigh in. If on the other hand you recognize our role in overthrowing an elected government, long-term support for a brutal dictator, and subsequent military support for Iran's opponent in a brutal war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, it might seem less wise to take sides. It's just a matter of which is a more accurate way to anticipate how Iranians would react to our taking sides.

Detection, Attribution and Estimation

The above is the title for an old 2006 James Annan post that I tried to find earlier, about Roger Pielke Jr.'s approach criticizing those who attempt to estimate the current level of damage from AGW. An excerpt:

A recent comment of [Pielke's] provides a nice opening:

As you well know much of science works through hypothesis - falsification. Across climate science the null hypothesis used to guide research has been that a human signal is NOT present, and research is then done to falsify this hypothesis. In some cases such research has been done allowing attribution of climate effects to an anthropogenic forcing. This null hypothesis is chosen because of Occam's razor, it is a simpler explanation for what is observed.

He is essentially posing the question as initially one of detection - can we show that the AGW has had an effect, and that the observations are not just the result of climate variability? - before moving on to attribution - how much of a change can we describe as being due to this particular cause?

There is, however, an entirely different but equally valid approach that could also be used from the outset, which is: what is our estimate of the magnitude of the effect? The critical distinction is that the null hypothesis has no particularly priviledged position in this approach.

James goes on to point out one of the two reasons why this is a bad approach:

It is amusing to see Roger, very much at the sharp end of policy-relevant work, promoting the scientifically "pure" but practically less useful detection/frequentist approach rather than the more appropriate estimation/Bayesian angle.

The business interests who will be hurt by action to address emissions know who they are, but the people who will be hurt by inaction don't know who they are. Damage estimates will help people know they are being affected and be more likely to balance the polluters in policy development.

The other reason why estimates are valuable is for climate change litigation. If we can estimate how much damage polluters are causing, we're much closer to figuring out what they owe to society. I'm certain this is something that fossil fuel lawyers and lobbyists are thinking about, and at some point they're going to want a deal: in return for immunity from litigation, they'll give a concession on climate change legislation. The more scared they are of litigation means the bigger the concession that they'll offer.

Back to James' post - in the comments, Roger shows up to say he mostly agreed with James on policy, but was not advocating but just "noting" the IPCC approach. Fast forward to more recently:

The attribution of health impacts to greenhouse gas emissions relies on work done by the WHO. Here is how the WHO describes its own analyses:

In 2002 the WHO explained (at p. 26 in this PDF):

Climate exhibits natural variability, and its effects on health are mediated by many other determinants. There are currently insufficient high-quality, long-term data on climate-sensitive diseases to provide a direct measurement of the health impact of anthropogenic climate change, particularly in the most vulnerable populations. Quantitative modelling is therefore the only practical route for estimating the health impacts of climate change.

And by quantitative modeling, they mean a model with assumptions included for the effects of GHG-driven climate change.

Roger calls this "non-empirical" and says estimates can be altered to say anything. Only "empirical" data can be used. I assume he means a disproof of the null hypothesis, which he had said before isn't a good way to do policy. Maybe I've misunderstood....

Worth noting that this WHO stuff is the same that Stoat says is badly done. And I'll concede that taking the additional step of estimating the human impact after estimating the AGW climate damage adds more squishiness to the calculation. But Roger says it shouldn't even be attempted, a different approach from saying the attempt was flawed.

(And I'll just put in a marker that I'm not convinced that William's right about the WHO, but I'm going to have to look at that more closely to see if I have anything intelligent to say....)

The American entry into the self-mockery Olympics

The Onion provides it here with this video, Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's. I'd like to see some other country top that video. We're Number One!

The unfortunate part being that self-mockery only works if it has an element of truth to it....

(I actually would be interested in similar self-mockery videos from elsewhere, could be an entertaining cultural experience.)

Greens opposed to Waxman-Markey are wildly unrealistic

Grist has been full of pro and con debates from enviros about the Waxman-Markey (one of the later salvos here). Just thought I'd add that it's pretty obviously the only game in town, and if it fails, it's unrealistic to expect anything else this year. Doing something is a whole lot better than doing nothing.

The only reason I can think of for holding off is the hope that next year, EPA will have come up with CO2 regulations that scare the bad guys enough to cut a deal in return for legislation that makes EPA back off. Too many problems with this, though, mostly problems of delay - EPA may not finish new regulations for over a year, and then the litigation will start and delay things even longer. Only after they've lost all the battles with EPA will the bad guys cut a deal.

A better approach is to get the best legislation that we can pass by 60 votes, now. When EPA issues draft regulations in a year or two, the polluters can try and strike a deal, but the baseline that they will have to improve from is the halfway-okay Waxman-Markey, as opposed to the present situation of nothing.

I don't think the relatively-smaller enviro groups opposing W-M have much of a leg to stand on.

UPDATE: a recent Nature Podcast commentary (not sure if it was June 4 or June 11) had another good point - if the US walks into the Copenhagen conference after the end of the year with no climate legislation in place, we will have no response to India and China saying they shouldn't put limit on their emissions either. If I were conspiratorial I'd think the polluters were cooperating on this tactic.

UPDATE 2: According to Mother Jones, the current version of W-M strips EPA of authority to regulate coal emissions for climate reasons (apparently not other aspects of climate change though). Consider part of my argument shot down, then.