Monday
Jul092012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Light posting
Jul 9, 2012 Blogs There will be blog silence for a few days (unless anything exciting happens).
Jul 9, 2012 Blogs 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (72)
Those suffering in Andrew's silence may want to examine the following! Steve McIntyre just mentioned his interest in it on CA and it seems to expand the potential range of discussion about natural variability and adequacy of paleo records? We should probably be extra cautious not to get too speculative or Rob Wilson will stop by to chastise us (he's one of the co-authors), but this does seem like a fascinating item. In light of my recent musings about the Holocene Optimum I'm particularly curious to see where this all may lead.....
Esper et al, Nature Climate Change Letter (08 July 2012)
"Orbital forcing of tree-ring data"
Jan Esper, David C. Frank, Mauri Timonen, Eduardo Zorita, Rob J. S. Wilson, Jürg Luterbacher, Steffen Holzkämper, Nils Fischer, Sebastian Wagner, Daniel Nievergelt, Anne Verstege & Ulf Büntgen
[my emphasis]
"....Indeed an evaluation of long-term temperature reconstructions, even over the past 7,000 years from across northern Eurasia, demonstrates that TRW-based records fail to show orbital signatures found in low-resolution proxy archives and climate model simulations (Supplementary Fig. S1). These discrepancies not only reveal that dendrochronological records are limited in preserving millennial scale variance, but also suggest that hemispheric reconstructions, integrating these data, might underestimate natural climate variability."
possible new "divergence" issues?
perhaps paleo records perhaps not as precise or sensitive as previously believed?
pity the guys who have to face the Wrath of Mann at the next paleo meeting or on Twitter..... omg have you "given fodder to the skeptics"??
p.s. I wonder how this (at link below) kind of blithe confidence will fare, that paleo data rules out any important non-astronomical causes for the Holocene Optimum:
NASA paleo site for public dismisses importance of Holocene Optimum
[my emphasis]
"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
Dr Adam Corner has an article in the Guardian, and I think he still doesn't understand (or accept) other reasons why people are sceptical, outside of his (and I think the whole field of phsycology's) theories.
----------------------------
Guardian: Communicating climate change: where next? - Dr Adam Corner
With public interest waning and climate change not going away how can the gap between scientific and social consensus on climate change be bridged?....................
............... Underpinning the entire challenge of public engagement is the need to ensure that climate change communication is trialled and tested using rigorous empirical research, that the latest academic evidence on communication is synthesised and disseminated to the people who need it, and that bridges between climate scientists, social scientists, and climate change communicators are re-built and nurtured.
Without a focus on better communication, the danger is that the gap between the scientific and the social consensus on climate change will continue to grow.
------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/17058601
I think it was Blair's New Labour which really popularised this concept of "We can't be wrong, so if people don't agree with our policies we just need to explain it to them better and they will come round to our way of thinking".
As this was in the Guardian, there are probably connections there.
Now will someone explain to this scientific dimwit how you know this and what was the forcing mechanism (which you "clearly know") that made the mid-Holocene warmer than today and why it only applied to Northern Hemisphere summers?
After that you can explain what was causing the warming prior to 1940 since it seems to be generally agreed that it wasn't CO2. And since it wasn't the same mechanism (you say) as the one that caused the mid-Holocene optimum what evidence have you that yet another mechanism wasn't responsible for the 1970-2000 warming?
There seems to be an awful lot of handwaving going on here.
correction: that site is NOAA not NASA.... typed too fast and got my acronyms mixed up.... but I'm in the USA and I do know the difference!
Skiphil
Thanks for the heads-up on the Nature paper. It may mark a sea change in Nature, from the ridiculous Mike's trick to something better, but certainly not sublime.
> There will be blog silence for a few days
His wife's bought "50 shades of Grey"!
:-)
'There will be blog silence for a few days (unless anything exciting happens)'
Even Richard Black's BBC blowhole is only about whales now.
Jul 9, 2012 at 7:05 PM | Barry Woods
[citing Adam Corner:]
Corner was so close and yet so far. What he should have called for is that which might stand a better chance of flying:
"Underpinning the entire challenge of public engagement is the need to ensure that all the models used in climate change science are trialled and tested using rigorous empirical research"
Or something along those lines :-)
Best wishes to our host as he takes a wee break, in the Scottish sense. The last headline "Mission impoverish" is one of the greatest I've seen here, poignant and true as well as witty. It makes one think. And thanks to Skiphil for the quote from Esper et al. Looking forward to it :)
Dr. Corner says: "With public interest waning and climate change not going away"!!!!!!!
nothing exposes the insanity of the CAGW advocates more than this simple, meaningless use of the phrase "climate change"
Dr. Corner - do you really think so little of human beings that you believe they don't know "climate change" HAS NEVER and will never go away so long as the earth exists, or are you just playing games? my guess is it's both.
Pat
re: Corner and his "climate change not going away"
I think this is an example of the propaganda problem that the catastrophists continually dance around. It seems that by "climate change" he means a value-laden expression, something extreme, horrendous, appalling, and caused predominantly by humans.... because if the term referred simply to (a) "natural" climate change, or even to (b) "moderate" humanly caused climate change of 1 or 2 or even 3 C, then it would be simply no .... big.... deal..... that it is "not going away."
These C-AGW types oscillate between trying to sound reasonable for the sake of credibilty vs. getting all hysterical in order to try to drum up more political concern and action, funding, etc. But their basic propaganda (and political) problem is that unless they can show sufficient reasons that we should believe (1) something so extreme is impending, (2) caused largely by human activities, (3) which we can do something **cost-effective** to alter or forestall, they really have no case at all. A case for their own neurotic fears perhaps, but not for the rest of us.
No science* case and certainly no policy case!!
*[as I mention from time to time, I don't pretend to know enough to confirm or reject some of the main claims supporting some amounts of AGW.... the leaps to "catastrophic" AGW shaping various implausible policy proposals to be rammed down our throats is where I as a citizen and independent questioner become a great deal more "skeptical" .....]
Jul 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM | NW wrote:
I think it was Blair's New Labour which really popularised this concept of "We can't be wrong, so if people don't agree with our policies we just need to explain it to them better and they will come round to our way of thinking".
----------------------
So that is where ju-LIAR of Australian despotic fame got the line ... we all know that she isn't capable of original thought.
Meanwhile DownUnder the ABC are just making it up; from Andrew Bolt's blog:
The ABC reports on global warming conference in Cairns:
A foundation of facts established that ocean temperatures have climbed by half a degree in the past decade, ocean acidity has increased by 25 per cent and sea levels have risen by around 30 centimetres.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-10/delegates-to-discuss-climate-impact-on-reefs/4119988/?site=sunshine
ABC is changing their story but, as you would expect, are not identifying the full extent of the edits.
Bolt tracks the changes ...
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/solid_foundations_of_alarm/
What we must understand this is not the first time in History that the middle class elite have been heading a socialist revolution. It parallels the Narodnik period in Russia, just after the emancipation of the serfs. The purpose of the carbon dioxide religion is to motivate the proletariat to take direct action. Meanwhile, our Narodniks are benefiting from their inside track investments.
It's the same in Australia except there it's the union pension funds that have got the inside track for the windmills. Here it is the elite like Blair [Deutsche Bank etc.]. In Germany it was Schroeder with his GazProm import company. Here the operator companies are the same general group who benefited from planning and corporate scams under nuLaber. In short, immense corruption. In Scotland it's the relatives of MSPs made directors of windmill companies.
Is this exciting enough?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is-what-global-cooling-really-looks-like/
Barry Woods: Well done for passing on the language of this Corner fellow.
The article needs this subtitle: "Global Warming: propaganda will trump reality."
Philip Stott was on the Jeremy Vine show again just now, discussing the jet stream/ rain. But interestingly Vine announced that Stott has his own a half hour slot tomorrow evening (Wednesday) on BBC Radio 4 at 9pm discussing scientific scepticism. Should be worthwhile listening, as he is one of a total of only one BBC regular guests who has been consistently and vehemently sceptical of the conclusions and predictions of the 'consensus' AGW climate science mainstream.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kkp5v
and their proof is what?
10 July: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: Scientists attribute extreme weather to man-made climate changeResearchers have for the first time attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves, to human-induced climate change
Climate change researchers have been able to attribute recent examples of extreme weather to the effects of human activity on the planet’s climate systems for the first time, marking a major step forward in climate research.
The findings make it much more likely that we will soon – within the next few years – be able to discern whether the extremely wet and cold summer and spring so far experienced in the UK this year are attributable to human causes rather than luck, according to the researchers.
Last year’s record warm November in the UK – the second hottest since records began in 1659 – was at least 60 times more likely to happen because of climate change than owing to natural variations in the earth’s weather systems, according to the peer-reviewed studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, and the Met Office in the UK. The devastating heatwave that blighted farmers in Texas in the US last year, destroying crop yields in another record “extreme weather event”, was about 20 times more likely to have happened owing to climate change than to natural variation…
Peter Stott, of the UK’s Met Office, said: “We are much more confident about attributing [weather effects] to climate change. This is all adding up to a stronger and stronger picture of human influence on the climate.”…
But the key question – of whether man-made global warming is putting a dampener on British summers – will take several years to solve, according to Stott. “This is an open question in terms of research – it is too early days to be able to say,” he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/extreme-weather-manmade-climate-change?newsfeed=true
ah, boosted the odds!
11 July: ABC Australia: AFP: Climate change boosts odds of extreme weather: report
Read the 282-page State of the Climate report here (15.61MB PDF)
While it remains hard to link single events to human-caused climate change, “scientific thinking has moved on and now it is widely accepted that attribution statements about individual weather or climate events are possible,” the report added.
The key is analysing to what extent climate change may be boosting the odds of extreme weather, said the report, likening the phenomenon to a baseball player who takes steroids and then starts getting 20 per cent more hits than before.
Scientists can consider steroids as the likely cause for the increase in hits, but must still take care to account for natural variability in the player’s swing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-11/climate-change-boosts-odds-of-extreme-weather/4122988
The BBC seem to have got hold of the same old same old story via the "Committee on Climate Change" and the NOAA state-of-the-climate annual report, with some help, allegedly, from the barbecue-summer modelling squad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18790674
It's painful reading.
e.g. "The authors say the UK will still experience cold winter months, but they estimate that temperatures like those in the snow-covered December of 2010 will be only half as likely as before."
-Sounds a bit like the 'children won't know what snow looks like' story that was peddled prior to, um, 2010?
A report by Roger Harrabin on BBC news this morning, discussing the "Committee on Climate Change".
He came out with some bizarre double-think.
Can he really not see that there is no logical train of thought here?
Stott (MO), Beddington, Harriban and the other bed wetters are just fools. Their increasingly desperate assertions that the recent rainfall is evidence of CO2 induced weather-cooking remind me of the medieval witch-hunters Dr Balliunas describes here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M.
Incidentally, I should point out that the recent "UK" rainfall has not been widespread throughout the these isles. The Central Highlands had a very dry spring and below average rainfall has continued into July. The West Highlands have had very little rain in the last 6 weeks. Mull, Skye and Western Isles are very dry and have had their best spring and summer for years. The recent rain on Albion's Plain is just natural variation, and noise. The so called experts in the Met Ofice and NOAA are an embarrassment to science.
lapogus, don't you see that by giving examples of all sorts of weather around the UK you are reinforcing Harrabin's point?
There is I suspect no possible weather or climate pattern that is not "consistent with CAGW".
In response to the MSM onslaught today of 'It's raining so we have climate change because of the cold air coming from melting Arctic ice', I'll point out that in Australia, it's the coldest winter in 50 years [snow in S. Australia!].
Yet the Antarctic has been cooling and its sea ice has been expanding. So, warmists, go and find another set of suckers.
PS: read the IR data from Hottell and Leckner in the Metallurgical literature, clearly untapped by climate science, and you'll find that in a long optical path, there is no further increase in emissivity/absorptivity above ~200 ppmV in dry air.
That apparently means that from the early years of the end of the last ice age, when it was just the Southern Ocean warming, there has been no further increase in the IR absorption in the atmosphere by CO2. Also, apparently, there can have been no CO2-AGW in the past, nor any in the future.
So, what is causing the World to cool, climate change?
lapogus "just fools"
I think a more accurate term would be "useful idiots" ;¬)
There is I suspect no possible weather or climate pattern that is not "consistent with CAGW".
Jul 11, 2012 at 10:32 AM | steveta
As soon as the weather (or is it climate, I can never work out which it is as the rules change to suit) changes from the prediction the prediction changes. (but they are not predictions anyway they are model results or something else DOH).
When you watch all the twists and turns as the real weather unfolds and does not meet the model's outputs you must at some point have to say the models are wrong. Who is going to be the first after Lovelock.
Due to the climate of fear being promulgated by the climate doomongers, pretty soon children won't know what the truth looks like.
Jul 11, 2012 at 10:32 AM | steveta -
No I don't agree - the spatial variability of the recent rainfall is due to natural variation [of the position of the jet stream] and nothing else. Harrabin doesn't have a valid point and as such it cannot be reinforced.
Yes, in full agreement with you there. ;)
Woe, Woe and thrice Woe.......
We're having a heatwave here in Greece at the moment (I gather Italy's getting it as well).
Does that mean Climate Change??
......or could it possibly because we always have a heatwave some time in July or August?
ceetee
A memorable comment- spot on.
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2011-03-29/
Courtesy of Shakassoc, posted on EURef.
And the pond is near to overflowing for — so I am told — the first time in living memory.
But I haven't heard anyone locally blaming it on anything other than "weather".
The record July temperature for this area, incidentally, was in 1949 and the record 24-hour rainfall in 1989. No headlines there, then!
I wonder how many adherents of the Global Warming religion actually believe it? Oh for a pie chart showing believers against knowing participants in a green scam against knowing participants in a financial scam.
But any attempt to do such a poll is doomed to failure: to a man the brethren would declare their total faith.
This isn't about science, it's politics in scientific clothing. We need active politicians - Nigel Lawson isn't enough - to declare that the king has no clothes, to seize a big political opportunity, to dismantle the wicked carbonocracy.
I see the Times has a front page piece today by Paul Simons and Oliver Moody making the case that "Endless rain flows from melting ice" - It opens with - "Britain's dismal weather could be a direct consequence of the melting of the Artic sea ice, according to the latest research." ................... What a surprise!
The article is based on the work of Jennifer Francis from the Rutgers University in NJ, USA.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/
Can't see Mann doing a Russell Wasendorf (of PFG) when found out.
Copy of a blanket email from spiked yesterday
Anyone else get it
They need £5 grand .
I will give them a few quid.
I proberly need to pay the Bish whilst i got the card out
Brendan should really start considering taking advertizing or sponsership
Grab a peice of the Broadsheet action.
People that read Spiked are going to be Interlectual middle class types.( Not me )
High earning proffessionals . An Advertizing Execs dream come true
"Since we launched our Target Ten Thousand campaign, our ever-generous readers have once again dug deep to help to ensure spiked stays fighting fit. So on behalf of the spiked team, I would just like to say thank you to all who have already donated - we are now halfway to our target of £10,000!
However, we still do urgently need to raise the other half. So if you haven’t donated yet, please consider lending us your support and helping us raise another much-needed £5,000 by the end of the month.
ALL donations, of whatever size, are gratefully received. And, remember, any one-off donation over £50, or regular donation of £5 per month, will get you access to spiked plus, our exclusive monthly ‘magazine within a magazine’ – the next edition is out tomorrow.
Click here to make a one-off donation.
Click here to make monthly donations.
Thank you,
Brendan O’Neill
editor, spiked"
All this stuff about "communicating better" and then the great unwashed would get it, has been around as long as Leftism itself. The problem is that invariably the messianic Left is saying, "this crock of shit is actually a bar of gold". And when we, who have eyes, say "Oh no its not", immediately they start waffling on about false consciousness, capitalist disinformation, communication problems etc etc because in their blinkered view, it is a bar of gold - or at least would be if everyone would agree (that the crock of shit is now known as gold). Then they finally get fed up, and start Pol-Potting those who really won't agree that shit is gold. Climate change is no different. I suppose the next small step will be to make denialism a 'hate-crime'. After Orwell, I don't suppose even Progressives would dare to label anything a 'thought-crime'.
Caught the last half of the BBC R4 programme a scepticism. Climate science was not mentioned in the bit I heard. General thrust was that scepticism should be left to scientists (who properly understand matters) and amateurs and 'little people' should shut up. In short, usual arguments for a priesthood, tough luck we're Protestants.
I thought we were being told that the drought was in line with climate change predictions
""Current climate change projections for the UK suggest that by the 2050s, under the medium emissions scenario, summer temperatures may increase and summer rainfall may decrease."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17731573
Now all I hear is that the endless rain is exactly what the models predicted. Where were the models back in April when the EA and Met Office were telling me there was going to be a hosepipe ban until Christmas?
11 July: NZ Herald: Kieran Campbell: ‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming
Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems.
Wellington-based scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was part of the global research team investigating the distribution of CO2 emissions.
Ms Mikaloff-Fletcher said the breakthrough had taken scientists “completely by surprise”…
***The findings do not contradict existing science about global warming, but rather explain how much CO2 is absorbed by plants and animals, with some of the CO2 then being passed from plants into the land.
A report into the findings says the increase in uptake is “a big number”, about one billion tonnes of carbon per year.
“To put it into context, that is over 10 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions for 2010,” the report said…
“What it does mean is that the climate change has been a lot slower than it would have been otherwise (because) less of the CO2 we’re producing is staying in the atmosphere.”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10818936
***go figure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet the EU is attempting to force a CO2 aviation tax on the world's airlines!
3 July: Bloomberg: Europe Burns Coal Fastest Since 2006 in Boost for U.S
By Rakteem Katakey, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Rachel Morison
Europe’s higher coal use defies its policies to penalize carbon emissions and is based on profit margins climbing to a two-and-a-half year high for coal-burning power stations, data compiled by Bloomberg Industries show. Cheaper coal was made possible partly by a 49 percent jump in first-quarter imports from the U.S., Energy Information Administration data show…
“Coal will continue to remain on the money in Europe because it’s more competitive to burn than gas,” said Trevor Sikorski, an analyst at Barclays Plc in London. “More and more of the coal to Europe will come from the U.S. where just the opposite is happening.”…
Companies in the world’s biggest economy are spending at least $530 million to expand coal-export capacity to meet overseas demand, David Host, chief executive officer of shipping agent T Parker Host Inc., said June 22 at the IHS McCloskey Coal USA Conference in New York. Capacity will grow 35 percent to 285 million tons annually by 2015, he said.
Coal accounted for 30 percent of global energy consumption last year, the highest share since 1969, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2012. Demand grew 5.4 percent in 2011, the fastest among fossil fuels…
In Germany, as much as 6,400 megawatts, or 25 percent of the nation’s gas-plant capacity, will shut through 2015, Deutsche Bank AG predicts. EON, based in Dusseldorf, credited “improved market conditions for coal-fired assets” in Britain among drivers for first-quarter earnings…
Gas-fired plants need about half the carbon permits of coal burners. Even so, the 17 percent drop in permit prices to about 8 euros a ton ($10) from their February high has reduced their competitive advantage.
“Even if they were twice the current level, utilities would prefer coal over gas for power generation,” said Paolo Coghe, senior analyst at Societe Generale SA in Paris.
European utilities burning coal had a profit of 16.3 euros per megawatt-hour in the second quarter this year, compared with 9 euros a year earlier, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Industries. Plants using gas as a fuel only broke even in the quarter…
Coal delivered into Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp slumped 26 percent in the past year to $91 a ton on July 3. Prices in South Africa’s Richard’s Bay dropped to the lowest in more than two years on June 12 and rates at Australia’s Newcastle port declined to the lowest since Dec. 18, 2009.
Coal delivered into Europe is likely to fall 9 percent in this year’s fourth quarter from the period a year earlier as China raises capacity and the U.S boosts exports to a record, according to a median of four analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/europe-burns-coal-fastest-since-2006-in-boost-for-u-s-energy.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 July: Western Morning News Cornwall: Time for us to get real on this green energy obsession
There has never been a more important time for people to wake up and see the reality that lies behind the great "green agenda" and the belief in carbon induced climate change.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. Chilling isn't it!
This ugly belief that we are destroying the planet is being forced into every corner of our lives. It is taught in schools, to children, who are told that their forefathers helped to put the planet on death row. It is squeezed into every corner of everyday life, from the type of houses we build, the way we heat them and even to the type of bulbs we are allowed to use in them, from food production through to waste and to just about any form of transport and travel!...
The situation is this, for all the evil we apparently do to the world by eating meat, driving cars, and keeping warm, the only solution seems to be to tax everyone more. Apart from the obvious taxes on fuel, on coal, on industries, all of which are based on CO2 (Yes, CO2, that naturally occurring plant food that we have all been led to believe is a pollutant) there are many more hidden taxes. The useless, countryside-destroying windmills, encouraged by environmentalists, just earn millions of pounds for the owners, paid for by us – a tax. The incentives for biomass paid for by us – a tax. The power generated by solar panels, albeit very little, paid for by us – a tax. And so on. Next year a carbon floor price will be introduced which will further increase the cost of energy. And all of this hardship is being perpetuated by an invented problem, that our messing with carbon will end life as we know it! What rubbish.
The latest local ramification to all this is the huge number of people living in fuel poverty...
Every single carbon-reducing plan comes hand in hand with an increase in price. Hence the chase for less carbon will cause more fuel poverty. It's time to get real, and free ourselves from this anti CO2 obsession.
Please remember, climate change is the natural deviation of a planet's ever changing weather pattern, and nothing we see now is new. It has all been here before in history, hotter and colder. However, Manmade Global Warming is nothing but politics. Politics in its most manipulative and controlling guise.
Don't let it continue.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Time-real-green-energy-obsession/story-16515785-detail/story.html
I support Andrew staying away as long as he can to do whatever he's doing but others may want to see the link on "unthreaded" about what is happening with the Karoly book review of Mann!
I hereby nominate David Karoly as the 'zebra of the week' and ask that all conversations about the said zebra's review of King Zebra's book be carried here.
Happy hunting!
sHx
rofl good one, or in this case maybe "Carrion of the Week".....
since it's like the lions just came upon a carcass out on the Serengeti.........
wasn't much of a hunt on this one......
Skiphill, let's share the credit for keeping the "Serengeti Strategy" alive until Karoly came and took it to new heights. It really has caught on. :D
Methinks, the reason the vainglorious Mann even mentioned the "Serengeti Strategy" (and thus earning for himself the title 'King Zebra') is because he wanted to show he could take the time out from the pressures of "Climate Wars" and go on a safari. Like the president who wants reassure the nation by playing golf during wartime.
What does the "Serengeti Strategy" mean? I don't know. I think it means different things to different people. To me it mostly means a rich reservoir from which I can draw a lot of satire, parody and ridicule directed at the King Zebra and the zebras surrounding him.
The analogy is so rich because it is so vague and can be interpreted in so many ways. Who are the herd? The IPCC? And why is it wrong to nail down bad science the way a lion would bring down a zebra? Somebody has got to keep the lion cubs fed. Think about the lion cubs! Why should it be wrong for lions to hunt for zebras on the edges of the herd anyway?
So, who is with me nominating Karoly for the "Zebra of the Week" award?