Last week, the Antiplanner engaged in a cordial debate with Chuck Kooshian of the Center for Clean Air Policy about whether smart growth — compact development combined with transit improvements — is a cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You can watch the video below and download the slideshows used by Mr. Kooshian and the Antiplanner.
Mr. Kooshian made a good point in his rebuttal. The Antiplanner critiqued a study called Growing Cooler, which assumed that new cars built after 2020 would always average just 35 mpg, when much higher averages were possible and even likely. Mr. Kooshian pointed out that his own study assumed that new cars in 2030 would get 55 mph.
There http://pharma-bi.com/2009/02/another-work-weekend/ sildenafil from canada was no solution to tackle this problem in men, the popular therapy followed is a massage. Buy kamagra online has become convenient, thus, most of cheap viagra tablets the ED patients avail this mode of purchasing. It often points to generic cialis professional a serious issue with trusts, respect and other aspects of relationship. Poor erections are caused by an improper flow of blood to their penis were more http://pharma-bi.com/2011/03/dual-axis-graphs-are-they-useful/ cialis 5 mg likely to face this issue in their life.
Still, the Antiplanner pointed out, Mr. Kooshian’s study did not compare the cost-effectiveness of smart growth vs. even more fuel-efficient cars, and one MIT study estimated that building new cars average 69 would be cost-effective by 2030. Beyond this, I’ll let the video and presentations speak for themselves.
Thank you for taking a PowerPoint presentation class. They are no longer painful to look at. Next step: Tufte!
Best,
D
“whether smart growth … is a cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”
Why not argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Thanks to climate-gate we know that the whole concept of “greenhouse gas emissions” is ripe rotten with fraud, crawling with maggots, and discussing it is a waste of time.
And all of you enraged lefties can drop dead. I am much more of an environmentalist than 99% of you and my environmentalism is based on the sustainable concepts of “Markets”, “Capitalism”, “Private Property” and the really complicated one of “Minding my own fucking business and not taxing and regulating everyone else senseless in support of my latest insane chicken little fad”.
The environmental problems we have will not be solved by leftie witterings about “Climate Change”.
Useless, ineffective, bullshit artists. I resent every penny the AGW crowd steals to pad their wallets and egos at the expense of sewage treatment or nuclear power. No, contrary to leftie liars, we on the right do not like burning coal and oil, nor shit in our water, but we live in the world of the possible, not the leftie big rock candy mountain, where apparently the “streams of alcohol trickling down the rocks” have addled their wits.
Well, enough ranting, off to the office to crush peasants.
Speaking of yapping off topic, Black, can you present one shred of evidence that anything in reality, on the ground, here on earth was massaged, deleted, manipulated, suppressed etc as a result of the e-mails?
Let me help you: no you can’t.
There is no evidence to support the Swift Boat claims.
Which must be why you are ululating in such a manner. Because there is zero evidence after nearly a month. No evidence to support the claims of the Swift Boat-style campaign. Nothing. Zip. Your wish was not fulfilled, and you are bitter. Don’t take it out on the world because the world doesn’t fulfill your wishes, lad.
DS
Well, at least the duelling slide shows were cordial. The comment section? Not so much.
On the one hand, I’ll agree with Dan that Randal’s Powerpoints are now much better and readable.
On the other hand, using commute to work data at the gross urbanized area level at, say, “40,000 feet” is far too crude to show much relationship between density and non-automotive usage.
Smaller, higher density areas don’t show up at such a gross level, nor do those areas with good transit access, particularly rail, also show up. In the latter case, only about 6% of urbanized America is within walking distance of a transit station.
At the census tract level, the strong relationship between higher densities and lower automobile per capita mileage shows up quite strongly in literally dozens of analyses, as does the relationship between transit availability (particularly rail) and the number of residents and jobs nearby. This is why the work of Kooshian et al always uses more finely detailed data than what was chosen by Randal in his presentation.
Well DS nice straw men, but let me huff and puff and blow them away. Swift Boat? Did I mention Swift Boats? No, I did not and swift boat is just another lying lefty buzzphrase for ‘Ouch, ya won’, so thanks.
Then you say: “can you present one shred of evidence that anything … was massaged, deleted, manipulated, suppressed etc as a result of the e-mails”. As a result of them? Who in the bloody blue blazes argued that things were done as a result of emails? Not me.
The emails (and code – the lefties all want to pretend the code is not there – la, la, la, I can’t hear you…) are clear evidence of extant bad faith, extant dishonest science, extant faked peer review, extant pressure to conform and extant appalling computational practice. As a RESULT of the emails people are starting to sharpen up.
As for ‘evidence’, it’s everywhere, you cannot wander the internet without falling on it. Read Monbiot for an honest leftie’s perspective. You might read further a bit and see just what the rest of the universe is now seeing. Try Watts Up With That or the Volokh Conspiracy.
I’ll quote ACE: (http://minx.cc/?post=295680)
‘We keep being assured that quackery at CRU is no big deal because these data are confirmed by “every” other “independent” study. There are only three main records of observed (real-measure) temperature: CRU, GISS (Godard Institute for Space Studies, at NASA — Hansen’s creature) and GHCN, (Global Historical Climate Network, at the NOAA).
Problem one: Both GISS and CRU get their raw data from the GHCN. So, right out of the box, these “independent” measurements which supposedly confirm each other are not looking very independent at all.
Each takes the “raw data” and adjusts it. Now, in some cases, some adjustment is needed. If a station used to be in a field but is now surrounded by asphalt, its temperature needs to be adjusted down. (Though, as critics have pointed out– they never adjust down as much as they should.) If a station had to be moved, and it was moved up a hill, where temperatures are lower, the temperature needs to be adjusted up to reflect that. (Though, critics note: Very often it is adjusted much higher than necessary.)
And what other sorts of adjustments are being done on the real, raw actual numbers?
Oh my. Plenty.
The adjustments, you know, that they never specify, “hiding behind IPR” claims (intellectual property rights), inventing other spurious reasons for refusal, citing non-disclosure agreements, deleting emails, “losing” data, etc.
I’m not going to drag this out. Below, in blue: The actual real raw real completely measured in physical reality temperatures for Darwin, in Northern Australia. Did I mention these are the real temperatures?
In red: The temperature as “adjusted,” in a process called “homogenization,” which seems to be some bullshitty form of averaging Darwin’s readings with readings from other stations. Why do this? I don’t know, but I know it’s not science — you can’t spell homogenization without “homo.”
Behold– your global warming at Darwin station:
darwin_zero7.png
The black line represents the adjustments — that is, the scale of adjustments necessary to the blue line to get to the red line. As you can see, the black line is…. tall. And steep. And… pretty much fake.
Willis Eschenbeck writes:
“YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjustâ€, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.”
Okay, now it’s going to get slightly arcane — and I’m going to be kind of guessing here, because I’m not sure what this guy is saying. But I think this is it.
These guys do a process called “homogenization,” right? What that means is they cast about for nearby stations, then average those, and then compare the average of nearby stations to the station in question, and, if they feel like it (if they think it “needs” it), they adjust the numbers of the target station to be closer to the average of the other, nearby stations.
Ehhh… I’m already sort of bothered that they doing that, and deciding when to adjust based on pure judgment. There is no actual science here — this is judgment. If a station looks like it’s a bit of an outlier, that it deviates from the trends of nearby stations, they adjust. But note that is a guess; they are guessing it’s an outlier, a wildcard, and needs to be “massaged” closer to nearby stations.
You can also see they’re doing a lot of massaging. Note that the mere adjustments they did in the above chart were far bigger than the actual increase in temperature. (In fact, there was no increase in actual temperature, except for the adjustments.)
Let’s face it: There is a lot of human judgment going on here, and we have a strong suspicion about which direction that human judgment is taking us in. Colder long ago, hotter now.
Okay, so here is the next chart, which is worse. I am a bit baffled as to precisely what this chart is; but I think (best guess!) this is one of the three station records that together make up the chart above. The chart above is three real station records, averaged together, and then “homogenized” with stations from further away.
This is a single station that makes up that record (I think). Notice the outright huge adjudgments:
darwin_zero8.png
Wow. The actual record shows a decline overall, with lower temperatures now than 100 years ago, but the slightest little uptick near the end. The “adjusted” numbers now show higher temperatures now than ever before, with a huge increase at the end — as the chart notes, there is now a six full degree C increase over a century, all thanks to “adjustments.”
All thanks to adjustments.
Back to Eschenbeck:
“Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized†data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK†are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.
So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust†Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted†or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.
Another odd fact, the GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 (which covers much of the same period, and as per Fig. 5 is in excellent agreement with Station Zero and Station 1) totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them.
That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it “hides the declineâ€.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. It’s likely a better choice than the GHCN monstrosity, but it’s a hard one to justify.”‘
As for cordiality, I am not cordial with pickpockets.
Thank you black.
There is no evidence on the ground for the assertions the Swift Boat-style campaign has made.
None.
No evidence for data manipulation. For hiding. For massaging. For suppressing.
Zero. For anything the Swift Boat creator has posted on his site and purveyed elsewhere. For anything the denialosphere has twitterpated about.
Nothing.
But thank you for typing and hitting ‘submit’.
DS
Let me repeat:
“Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized†data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.”
So DS, what does justify that ‘adjustment’? Lies? Fraud? Pickpocketry?
I look forward to your next denialist comment denying the undeniable evidence of falsified temperature data.
Wowie!!! an amateur ideologue engineer with no education in metro or climo performing a ham-handed analysis – not published, not subjected to peer review by climatologists, ignoring adjustment information – that’s the best you can do? Hand-wave away from the CRU hacked e-mails to an amateur farting erroneously around?
Really? That’s the best you can come up with?
Grasp at a serial dissembler’s lack of cognition? Three weeks and there is no CEI/AEI/Faux/Koch/Scaife/Murdoch press release with a list of x, y, z that you can triumphantly cut-paste that details the conspiracy with facts and names and papers and datasets??
Doesn’t bode well, methinks.
————-
Comical and prolix nincompoopery notwithstanding,
msetty, there was a recent Vulcan analysis mentioned in a different thread that teases out density in a June 2009 emissions analysis, ~pp 8-10, that reinforces previous findings about density and transport…
DS
The Romans were smart enough to understand that ‘Appeal to Authority’ and ‘Ad Hominem’ were stupid arguments, but lefties don’t geddit.
A point of posting an amateur’s argument is that any fool can see the BS. Except of course the lefties.
You have not said one word about the argument raised. Not one word. Because you cannot. It is right, you are wrong. Tough luck.
Your entire argument is the equivalent of saying special relativity was wrong because Einstein was a mere postal clerk at the time he worked it out.
If you would like a good, pretty complete, list of lefty arguments on AGW, try logicalfallacies.info. Here’s a partial list:
Fallacies of Relevance
* Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
* Bandwagon Fallacy
* Fallacist’s Fallacy
* Fallacy of Composition
* Fallacy of Division
* Gambler’s Fallacy
* Genetic Fallacy
* Irrelevant Appeals
o Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
o Appeal to Authority
o Appeal to Consequences
o Appeal to Force
o Appeal to Novelty
o Appeal to Pity
o Appeal to Popularity
o Appeal to Poverty
o Appeal to Wealth
* Moralistic Fallacy
* Naturalistic Fallacy
* Red Herring
* Weak Analogy
Fallacies of Ambiguity
* Accent Fallacies
* Equivocation Fallacy
* Straw Man Fallacy
Fallacies of Presumption
* Affirming the Consequent
* Arguing from Ignorance
* Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
* Complex Question Fallacy
* Cum Hoc Fallacy
* False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
* Hasty Generalisation Fallacy
* ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
* Post Hoc Fallacy
* Slippery Slope Fallacy
* Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy
* Subjectivist Fallacy
* Tu Quoque Fallacy
It is simple:
Poor black, you cannot provide evidence that any of the hypothetical speculation you rely upon for your argument actually happened on the ground.
That is: you haven’t shown that any of the hypothetical speculation you rely upon for your argument actually happened on the ground.
IOW: none of the hypothetical speculation you rely upon for your argument actually happened on the ground.
You haven’t shown that the hypothetical speculation you rely upon for your argument actually happened on the ground.
What you are doing in #11 is called a ‘Gish gallop’. Bullsh—ng by hand-fluttering, in other words.
You are embarrassing yourself.
You can stop embarrassing yourself by faithfully cut-pasting a CEI/AEI/Faux/Koch/Scaife/Murdoch press release with a list of x, y, z that you can triumphantly trumpet, display, tout, promote that details the conspiracy with facts and names and papers and datasets.
But here’s a hint: you can’t cut-paste a CEI/AEI/Faux/Koch/Scaife/Murdoch press release with a list of x, y, z that you can triumphantly trumpet, display, tout, promote that details the conspiracy with facts and names and papers and dataset… so instead you embarrass yourself.
Why can’t you credulously and faithfully cut-paste a CEI/AEI/Faux/Koch/Scaife/Murdoch press release with a list of x, y, z that you can triumphantly trumpet, display, tout, promote that details the conspiracy with facts and names and papers and datasets and stop embarrassing yourself?
Get on it. Cut paste the evidence. Come on. Cut-paste. Get moving. Let’s go.
IOW: you don’t have squat for your false assertion, black. You got jack. You are shellacked. You have no facts. Your prolixity has falsehoods, jam-packed. You believed hacks. Your ideology has been hijacked.
Too bad for you, eh?
DS
Hey, Dan, why doncha just say somethin’ ’bout glaciers? What, they’re melting?
Have been since the end of the Little Ice Age. They’re revealing old tree stumps, presumably planted by global warming skeptics.
Sea levels? Also rising since the Little Ice Age.
Here’s a question: Like shooting fish in a barrel? Why don’t you direct your assholeliness at highwayman?
What a sanctimonious prick you are. Ideologue? What do you think you are? Besides a hypocrite? Why don’t you go generate some more hot air (CO2) by jet setting ’round the country on the taxpayer’s dime? Better yet, just keep posting one of your hundreds of comments while at work.
Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountain side
The summer’s gone, and all the flowers are dying…
And so is AGW. Done. Fertig. Kaput. Pining for the fjords. It is an ex concensus. It is no more.
Danny boy, – Not. One. Word. of. Substantive. Argument. What. Is. The. Basis. For. The. ‘Adjustment’?
Wot? You can’t? You won’t? How bout dat?
C’mon Danny boy, you can do it. Deal with the substance. The ‘adjustment’. Where did it come from? Don’t cite me some nutzy CompSci prof at the Uni of New South Nowhere, cite me someone like Freeman Dyson.
Oh wait, Freeman Dyson says AGW is claptrap. See, even I fall prey to Appeal to Authority. But, my God Freeman Dyson? How you gonna deal with that? Ghostbusters?
And please, don’t tell me what a dumb asshole I am. I concede that. I’m a dumb asshole.(Who’s right – ha, ha). And gloating, gloating, gloating. Because I’m an asshole. Gloat. Gloat. Gloat. I was right and you wuz wrong, you wuz stupid, and you misled yourself senseless.
Well, thanks for the chat, but now I’m off to bed to refresh my energies for peasant crushing and the destruction of the environment.
Blacqy.
PS: Je suis Quebecois and it drives me mad to be called Black, you maudit Anglais.
PPS: Daniel Rigby –
All the lonely ‘adjustments’, where do they all come from?
All the lonely ‘adjustments’, where do they all belong?
Probably scans better if you slur it to ‘justments’
Frank:
Thanks. He is a silly bit of business, isn’t he?
Well, we’re keeping a list and checking it twice, and in a few years, hopefully months, these things collapse quickly, think of Germany in ’45, we shall heap further loads of scoffery on his head, he all the while grinning a shit-eaters embarrassed grin.
This blog has better flame wars than Usenet ever had! I think I’m going to like it here.
C’mon Danny boy, you can do it. Deal with the substance.
The substance of the issue is there is no evidence that the quote-mined breathless hypotheticals, mendacious questions and scurrilous speculation happened on the ground.
Evidenced here in this thread by the inability to cut-paste a CEI/AEI/Faux/Koch/Scaife/Murdoch press release with a list of x, y, z that details the conspiracy with facts and names and papers and datasets.
DS
Ah, then I take it you agree the temperature in Australia has been falling, not rising, as is clearly shown by the dataset, un-retouched, to which I referred you? And that there is no honest, proper or even known method for creating ‘The Adjustment’, which like all such lies, must be, with Herr Marx, pitched onto the ash heap of history?
You keep demanding that I give you datasets from “CEI/AEI/Faux/Koch/Scaife/Murdoch” and I won’t because, imprimus, they have nothing to do with it, and secundus…
…I gave you a simple, small, easy to understand dataset and you had not one substantive word to say about it. Not one.
The ‘Adjusted’ dataset is fraudulent. QED.
Black,
your low-watt lies are some of the poorest attempts at Gish galloping I have seen in some time.
o I already stated the AUS temp fumble you bring up again can’t stand scrutiny.
– You originally brought this up to dissemble away from the fact that there is no evidence for your assertions upthread. Now you bring it up again in a weak Gish gallop. This dataset isn’t what was ‘adjusted’. It is a weak play.
A weak grasp at anything to hand-flutter.
o You have zero evidence for anything being adjusted according to the quote-mined speculation.
– Your continuing to hand-wave away from the fact that you can’t specify what was adjusted, why, when, how, or for what purpose reveals you to be comical in your lack of ability to argue, analyze, or present facts.
o Your comical lie about what I asked for in You keep demanding that I give you datasets from “CEI/AEI … reveals that you can’t even remotely cover your tap-dancing.
– Any monkey can scroll upthread and check that my “demand” was instead a statement that you have nothing, boy.
You can’t even begin to hide the fact that you can’t argue your way out of a paper bag.
o You have no facts to back your claim
o You must misstate what I wrote to argue your point
o Your lies are comically transparent
You are a time-waster. A third-grader can see you have nothing and are spamming the thread to hide the fact you have nothing.
You have nothing. Oh, wait: you have prolixity and hand-waving and galloping and spam. That you have in spades.
Facts? You have no facts.
[killfile]
DS
Dan,
If he’s so wrong, why won’t you answer the Darwin data adjustment? What is it about that adjustment that has you running scared to the degree that you won’t even acknowledge it? Because I gotta tell you, as a guy who DOES think AGW is happening, I found it very troubling to look at those charts and realize what those “scientists” had done.
Like:Very good point about job concentration and transit. I suppose some SG models show “concentration” of jobs in areas across the metro area. Much different than a high job concentration of NYC.
Dislike: Your graph about density and commuting percentage of car drivers (census data) is a very “tweaked” graph. You have density in terms of the entire urban area, with your x coordinate of density in terms of peaople/sq. mile, which is very narrow. The difference between 1,000 ppl/sq. mile is a lot, but it represents only one bar difference on your graph. You can’t even see the difference in the plotted dots because you’ve made your data, intentionally or unintentionally, clump together.
It would also be good to see the % of people who drive at the city level — not the urban area level. Remember, this issue is: “do people in higher densities drive less for commute?” If that’s the issue, then you need to remove the “noise” of the suburbia-auto lifestyle. The issue isn’t how do urban areas perform for density/commute behavior — but what is the effect of density on travel commute.
“A third-grader can see you have nothing and are spamming the thread to hide the fact you have nothing. ” –DS
Highwayman or Blacquejacqueshellac?
blacquejacqueshellac said: Je suis Quebecois and it drives me mad to be called Black, you maudit Anglais.
THWM: A Mon Dieu, Tabernac!
How did this topic go to a topic of AGW?
Who watched the lectures?
I’m guessing that the leftists were more prone to not listening to speeches, partly because of not wanting to take the time gain education.
The speaker who wanted higher density & crap like that did not make any valid point. He was awkward in his speech, but I heard his [non] content. It was refreshing that he referred to VMT, but there is much distinction to be made within (family size, only 1 UA is above 10% public transit use).
Example: People drive so much. This will solve it. NO it will not.. Look at data, including behaviors.
Randal: Your were very gracious in saying that he had a good response. I saw any of his speaking as nefarious, irrelevant, bullcrap, misrepresenting data, etc.
But then I know reality (stats), as do you, while being nice.
It was interesting to see Patrick Michaels as just an intro guy, rather than giving a lecture on how AGW is exaggerated & explaining climate.
I realize it’s fun to argue over symantics but do you really mean to claim that the emails, the flawed algorithms evident in the FORTRAN code and lost data is not a serious issue?
There is no evidence for anything you state, prk.
And the code for the other networks has been open, yet all monitoring networks are in close agreement. No there there.
Nothing has been presented from the e-mails that actually happened. No outcome. No manipulation. Hiding. Punching. Nothing.
Sorry.
DS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
BTW this man has the same religion as Mike & Scott!
I believe I’ve linked to that YouTube here, HM.
Nonetheless, it should be watched again for those lurkers wondering whether there is any there there with the e-mail Swift Boat campaign. When done, one can then move over to Climate Denial Crock of the Week, where GM points out all the denier/industry lies in their talking points.
Including the last two weeks dicing the CRUhack, subsequent ululating Swift Boat campaign, and the usual suspects’ evidenceless and arrogant rodomontades.
DS
Thanks Dan, I noticed an over lap with the many of the same crooks from Cato.