If you played the video by Lord Robert May in yesterday’s post you’ll have seen he refers to another Cambridge lecture. I have posted it before, but repeat it now as it is so important.
Lord May also applies the Prisoners’ Dilemma game to the current discourse on climate change. The comparison is chillingly apt, as the game was clearly played at Copenhagen and continues to be played as responses to Senator Wong’s swingeing attack on climate skeptics show — especially the lead story in today’s Australian.
… Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen "no change" to the coastline over that period. "Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future," said Mr Boman, 53.
Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong’s comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.
Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century…
Nice to hear from Lee, who was once a very popular barman at the sadly missed Albury Hotel — a thoroughly nice bloke. Of course the Oz would quote Bob Carter, a member of Lord Monckton’s outfit.
See the latest on such critics, especially in this case another Monckton groupie, Piers Akerman, in Akermangate: Piers Akerman fabricates some more.
OK, back to the Prisoners’ Dilemma.
(That’s from Jeffrey Hill’s English Blog.)
You can play Prisoners’ Dilemma here, and read more about it here.
On Prisoners’ Dilemma and climate change policy see Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University: Climate Change as Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma.
Here’s something for you to read: The Environmental Prisoners’ Dilemma Or We’re All in This Together: Can I Trust You to Figure it Out? — prisoners dilemma and climate change (opens same window).
I see Tim Lambert is onto that Australian story: The Australian’s War on Science 45.
But that wasn’t the only shot that The Australian fired in its War on Science today. There was another article, this one by Pia Akerman (yes, she’s the daughter of this guy). Akerman wheels out Ian Plimer to rebut Penny Wong’s speech:
Geology academic and leading climate change sceptic Ian Plimer dismissed Senator Wong’s defence of the IPCC, saying she was "talking codswallop".
"She has absolutely no idea how temperature is measured, she has no idea of the algorithms used to correct the urban heat island effect," Professor Plimer said. "She has no idea we’ve gone from about 9000 to 3000 measuring stations, most of which are now in industrialised areas, in cities or around airports, where we have hot fumes coming out of aeroplanes."
It’s possible that Wong does not know what the algorithms are, but it is certain that Plimer does not. The reduction in the number of stations does not bias the temperature record as Zeke Hausfather explains. And Menne analyzed Watt’s data and found that poorly sited stations produced a cooling bias.
Still, I do object to one of the commenters on that post calling Lee Bowman a “spangled drongo”, as I do in fact know Lee. I am sure Lee’s comments were given in good faith and he would be the last person to put the spin on them that The Oz managed to do.