Whoops! Scientists ask out of the global warming “consensus”

The latest attempt of the global warming alarmists to silence debate – by screaming, “Consensus!” – has hilariously come a-cropper.

As usual, the good folks at Watts Up With That have the details, from three paper authors who take great issue with the characterization of their papers as endorsing global warming.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-four examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmists, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009, just under three and a half years ago.

More to the point, they don’t seem capable of stopping.

London Meteorological Office caught upping the temperature data – again

“The Met” – as it is known – didn’t bother to warn anyone that is had “updated” their temperature data for their HADCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 data sets, choosing instead to simply unleash them on the public.

The folks at WUWT couldn’t help but notice that the data “updated”….

…are concentrated in the last 16 years, a period that the Met Office is under scrutiny for the lack of warming in their data.

Also, some of the regional changes appear quite contrived, e.g. it looks like they found five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the Northern Hemisphere in the last couple years.

South America they found almost a tenth of a degree of warming over the last decade;

Africa, had five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the last few years;

and Australia/New Zealand a tenth of a degree of additional warming over the last few years.

I left out the accompanying graphs, you can find them here. The WUWT fellows also note how this is part of a pattern of “adjusting” recent temperature data upward.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we have now reached forty-four examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmists, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since Climategate broke in November of 2009, just under three and a half years ago. More to the point, they don’t seem capable of stopping.

In this case, however, it is especially important to remember that the “adjustments” come right smack in the period of the data that has given alarmists their worst headaches: the post-1996 temperature stability. It could very well be that the “solution” is to simply jack up the numbers to make the stability go away…

Corey Stewart flies his campaign into a mountain

Five years ago, when Bill Bolling announced he was running for re-election instead of taking a shot at the Governor’s chair, every candidate for LG backed out with 24 hours, except one: Corey Stewart. For a brief moment, Corey could have taken the anti-tax-hike, anti-3202 mantle and spoke for the angry Republican activists who were even then bringing Bob Marshall to within a whisker of the Senate nomination and about to sweep Jeff Frederick into the RPV Chair. Instead, Corey decided to wait, and became the last LG candidate for 2009 to back out.

Now, five years later, just as Barkley plummeted from a sure-fire first round pick in 2012 to a fourth-rounder in 2013, Corey Stewart is finding that his decision to wait to run for LG set off a chain of decisions that could ruin his career.

Last night, Jim Riley presented the case that Stewart was behind a slew of semi-anonymous criticisms of Scott Lingamfelter’s record, and completely anonymous smacks on Pete Snyder’s private life. As Greg L of BVBL notes, the latter is not just bizarre, but also illegal. To top it all off, yet another anonymous source magically appeared to try dumping it all on Susan Stimpson (Shaun Kenney, who saw through that like it was Saran Wrap). It’s getting so bad that Mike over at Write Side has decided to skip Richmond’s convention entirely.

Still, even as one tries to avert the eyes from a campaign flying itself into a mountain, there is a black box to recover, and things to analyze in the wreckage. What I find interesting is the different nature of the missives. The stuff used against Lingamfelter was fairly accurate – based on actual votes and donation records – and had an “organization” behind it. In other words, the i’s were dotted and t’s crossed.

The hits on Snyder, by contrast, were sloppy and amateurish (Jim has the details), besides being illegal. This reeks of desperation (as does the bizarre hit on Susan), and a sign that a campaign knows it is in deep, deep trouble.

So what can we take away from all of this? A few things, I think.

1. Stewart: the new mountain man
2. Snyder: Clearly on the up, or this wouldn’t have happened to him
3. Stimpson: Also on the up, or this wouldn’t have happened to her
4. Lingamfelter: although what hit him was accurate, victimhood by association will likely give him a boost
5. JMDD: may be a surprise benefactor of the Stewart crash. Locally, Stewart had some establishment cred, some of those who backed him because of it may go to her
6. Jackson: No impact, although he can likely use it as part of his fresh-face, outsider campaign
7. Martin: Um……

That’s how I see it, FWIW. Convention day is two weeks from Saturday.

McDonnell’s amendments to transportation tax: a few rate tweaks, and a mechanism for AUTOMATIC future tax increases

Most of Governor McDonnell’s changes to HB2313 were minor – small reductions in the tax and fee rates – except for one big change that made this fiasco of a bill even worse: a mechanism to impose automatic future tax increases on Virginians.

One of the controversies surrounding what I call Plan ’13 From Outer Space was the state-imposed taxes on Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads (regional taxes being unconstitutional and all). So, in reaction to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s reminder of that fact (VV), the Governor came up with this (also VV):

Addressing potential legal questions regarding regional taxation authority for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. Amendments are made to the sections imposing the regional taxes for transportation by the state to improve the legal posture of the law by changing the applicability of the taxes to any Planning District Commission meeting certain empirical thresholds including population, registered vehicles and transit ridership.  Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia are the only jurisdictions currently meeting these criteria, but in the future other parts of the Commonwealth could utilize these tools if their transportation challenges continue to grow.

Now, it sounds like the affected future regions could choose to impose new taxes, doesn’t it? There’s only one problem: there is no choice involved at all. From the verbiage of the amendment itself (LIS VA, italics in original, bold added):

In addition to the sales tax imposed pursuant to § 58.1-603, there is hereby levied and imposed in each county and city located in a Planning District established pursuant to Chapter 42 (§ 15.2-4200 et seq.) of Title 15.2 that (i) as of January 1, 2013, has a population of 1.5 million or more as shown by the most recent United States Census, has not less than 1.2 million motor vehicles registered therein, and has a total transit ridership of not less than 15 million riders per year across all transit systems within the Planning District or (ii) as shown by the most recent United States Census meets the population criteria set forth in clause (i) and also meets the vehicle registration and ridership criteria set forth in clause (i), a retail sales tax at the rate of 0.70 percent. In any case in which the tax is imposed pursuant to clause (ii) such tax shall be effective beginning on the July 1 immediately following the calendar year in which all of the criteria have been met.

No “could utilize” about it. The tax increase is automatic. The determination is made not by local or state elected officials, but by the U.S. Census. Thus, future taxes can be imposed on an entire region without anyone taking responsibility.

By the way, here are the list of Planning Districts in Virginia. Please note that, in effect, a subdivision built multiple counties away from you can trigger a tax increase that no one can stop under the Governor’s amendments.

If anything, this just makes Plan ’13 From Outer Space worse. It certainly is no way to govern…

…and it leaves Virginia’s transportation system just as overcentralized, disconnected from land use, and held hostage to upstream unfunded mandates as it was before this entire sorry episode began.

With any luck, the legislature will reject this; the entire, listing enterprise will sink beneath the waves; and Virginia can try again with a fresh perspective in 2014.

FOIA (the Climategate whistleblower) reveals what caring about the poor really means

Watts Up With That found in his inbox the password to a slew of Climategate emails, courtesy of the anonymous whistleblower (who took the pseudonym Mr. FOIA).

Humor and political schadenfreude aside (well, almost – I particular like the part where “Reviewer B.” admits, “I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!”), FOIA explains his actions – and in so doing schools the lefties on what compassion for the impoverished really is (emphasis added):

That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.  The Republicans didn’t plot this.  USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK.  There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to  garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary.  I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never.  Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future.  The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen.  Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”.  The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script.  We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life.  It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc.  deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit.  No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc.  don’t have that luxury.  The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try.  I couldn’t morally afford inaction.  Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan .

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

We may never know who this person is, but I think James Delingpole had it right in calling him “the man who saved the world”…

…unless Mr. FOIA is actually Ms. FOIA, of course. Either way, this is truly a heroic person.

Meanwhile, WUWT continues the fight by continuing to take apart the latest hockey-stick nonsense (Easterbrook and Eschenbach).

Susan Stimpson for Lieutenant Governor

There has been quite a bit of bandwith burned on the race for Lieutenant Governor in Virginia. Seven candidates have brought themselves forward. Looking at their records (or lack thereof in some cases), I have chosen Susan Stimpson.

Many of my friends have chosen differently, which does not surprise me (unanimity is rare in the rightosphere). Nor does it surprise me that the criticism other bloggers have aimed at Susan have avoided her record. After all, she is the only elected official running for a statewide Republican nomination who has never voted for a tax increase.

I would humbly submit that this is a more important gauge for a candidate than one’s proximity to Bill Howell in a photo or prior career. Lest anyone forget, when Susan had to choose between her relationship with Howell and her opposition to tax increases, she chose the latter, and emphatically – something that not every statewide candidate (*cough* Ken Cuccinelli *cough*) was willing to do.

In short, her record in office has revealed someone determined to reduce both government spending and the tax burden on her constituents. Forgive the repetition, but it bears repeating; Susan Stimpson is the only elected official running for a statewide Republican nomination who has never voted for a tax increase.

I remember bumping into Susan a few times in 2009. She struck me as a nice woman, earnest, dedicated, and likely to follow the mold of the Stafford Republican clique. I had no idea she would be asking my advice on the Stafford budget, let alone follow it to the letter (I told her if she thought spending could be cut and taxes reduced further than was being presented, she should push for it – which is exactly what she did). I certainly didn’t expect she would use her seat on the VRE board to demand an audit of the organization. As one who remembers how MSM used to portray Republicans who drifted leftward as having “grown in office,” i can happily say Susan has “shrunk” in hers.

For these reasons, I support Susan for the LG nomination. Any Republican running would be superior to the Democrats’ crop of candidates, but Susan is the best on the Republican side.

Another busted hockey stick

The latest attempt by the global warming alarmists to make the Medieval Warming Period disappear came into the crosshairs of Watts Up With That – and ended up looking a lot like the gel torsos on Deadliest Warrior.

First up is Don J. Easterbrook, who notices something about the data…

Eighty percent of the source data sites were marine, so temperatures from 80% of the data set used in this paper record ocean water temperatures, not atmospheric temperatures. Thus, they may reflect temperature changes from ocean upwelling, changes in ocean currents, or any one of a number of ocean variations not related to atmospheric climates. This in itself means that the Marcott et al. temperatures are not a reliable measure of changing atmospheric climate.

Making matters worse, one of the land datasets was a tree ring reconstruction from none other than Michael Mann himself (he of “Mike’s Nature Trick”). Keep in mind, Mann has already admitted to errors in his tree ring data.

Meanwhile, David Middleton reveals another problem with the data – time intervals. He graphically explains why using old data that measures by 140-years-plus along with new annual data can cause problems.

Back to the penalty box.

Virginia, education spending, and budgets

During the great transportation-tax-love-in last month, a slew of Republican delegates and senators lamented that there was “nowhere to cut” in the Virginia budget. I can still hear Dave Albo running through the list of uncuttables.

One item he simply glossed over was “education” – as if it were impossible to find any efficiencies there. Now, I understand that education is the holiest of holies when it comes to state funding (and local funding, too; even I avoided it when I was proposing alternatives to property tax increases in Spotsylvania), but a new dataset compiled by AEI’s Mark Perry inspired a rethink.

Perry was comparing teachers to non-teacher-staff numbers for the fifty states, and what he found for Virginia was astonishing:

Virginia public schools led the nation in “educrat bloat,” with 130,100 non-teaching staff compared to only 70,947 teachers. That means that there were 183.4 public school administrators and non-teaching staff for every 100 teachers, or a ratio of almost two administrators and non-teaching personnel for every one teacher!

Yowza!

Of course, Virginia (like most states) reroutes quite a bit of taxpayer money to localities for education: over $6.6 billion a year (VA Department of Planning and Budget). Had the Commonwealth followed the national ratio on staffer-to-teacher (roughly 1:1), it could have saved quite a bit of money.

How much? Well, in order to figure that out, first you need to know how much Richmond spends per staffer. Since the data Perry compiled was from 2010, I went with the 2010 General Fund – Direct Aid to Localities for Education figure ($4.77B)…

Funding	$        4,769,832,540
Teachers	70,947
Non-Teachers	130,100
Total Staffers	201,047
“Wrap Rate”	$                 23,724.96

For the uninitiated, “wrap rate” refers to all of the expenses tied to a person (wages, benefits, desk space, equipment, etc.). I mention this in order to explain why I didn’t decide to attempt to tease out capital costs spent by the recipients of the aid; for the most part, buildings and offices needed are driven by the number people on staff. Of course, the rate clearly shows that the state is not the only level of government paying for these people, which becomes important later.

So, what would the state have spent in 2010 if the ratio were 1:1, rather than 1.83:1? Something like this…

Total Staff 1:1	141,894
Cost, 1:1	$        3,366,429,832
Savings	$        1,403,402,708
Savings %	29%

So the Commonwealth would have spent over $1.4B less on local school budgets had the non-teacher overage been addressed.

Assuming the ratios still hold today, that would translate to $1.569B in annual savings – over 20% more than the annual tax increase that was supposedly needed for roads.

Now, one could argue (and even if one didn’t, I already assumed one did) that simply cutting the state aid to local schools by $1.569B and asking the localities to cut back on non-teachers would go over like a lead balloon in courthouses and city council buildings. However, this is where the low “wrap rate” becomes relevant. Clearly, the state isn’t covering all of these staffers’ expenses; localities are partially on the hook, too. So local taxpayers would still save money if their school system pared down its non-teacher staffers.

Still, I figured I should at least bend the ear of my friend Shaun Kenney (currently in his fourth year on the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors). This is what he had to say…

Solution: whack the mandates that force localities to hire these bureaucrats.

The vast majority of this is coming down from Richmond.  Many localities would LOVE to do away with state mandated positions and the like… we just can’t.  The state comes in, forces us to hire, then retracts the state contribution because they are of the strong opinion that localities are awash in cash.

…

Almost half of the state mandates in Virginia directly impact education, and in many instances we have no idea what the cost or actual benefit (or negative impact) really is.

It’s ridiculous.  And no one has the guts to kill the mandates and treat localities as adults.

If that’s the opinion most localities share, this could be much easier than I thought.

More to the point, when it comes to finding alternatives to the Rube Goldberg tax-hike scheme now on the Governor’s desk (or, as I like to call it, Plan ’13 From Outer Space), please note what I have found (or projected to find) just after looking at one item – and one of the most politically sacrosanct items at that. Imagine what could be found if anyone went through the other $70-odd billion that is in the Commonwealth’s annual budget!

UPDATED: To be fair to Virginia, their hardly alone in this problem

The tax revolt goes national (and local)

John Fund (National Review Online) has noticed the Virginia tax battle, and the title says it all:

McDonnell Tarnishes His Legacy

I particularly like his description of the conference committee’s effect on the tax hikes: “kudzu-like growth.”

Now the eyes of the nation are on the General Assembly…

(Meanwhile, the 10th District Republican Committee also blasted the tax hikes)

Bloggers join together to stand up for the taxpayers (UPDATED – and they’re not alone)

More than a dozen bloggers have signed an open letter to the General Assembly asking them to defeat the “compromise” tax increase.

The link to the letter is here. Among the key points (emphasis in original)…

If fully implemented, the bill would cost Virginia taxpayers over $1.3 billion in new taxes. With the economy on a knife’s edge, additional taxes would damage employment (by raising the cost of business), consumption (by raising overall prices), and the overall business environment. This is not the time to raise taxes on hard-working Virginian employers and employees.

Moreover, the “local” tax increases (on Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia) will have numerous consequences in addition to exacerbating the damage mentioned above.

The grantor’s tax is an especially cruel tax to impose on these regions as they still try to recover from the housing slump that began over five years ago.

The higher sales tax will damage business on the regions’ outskirts (Prince William, Loudoun, Gloucester, Suffolk, Isle of Wight, James, City, York, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach) as their neighbors’ lower taxes attract businesses and consumers.

The regional hotel occupancy tax may or may not affect tourism, but it will certainly bean increased cost to business travel, further damaging the business climate.

Compounding this confusion will be the internet sales tax, which will now be expected(assuming Congressional passage) to be imposed not evenly throughout Virginia, but according to the sales tax quilt woven by this bill.

Finally, the creation of these regional taxes will encourage revenue-addicted politicians in other regions throughout the Commonwealth, adding greater uncertainty in tax regimens, and a patchwork of local taxes.

That’s just the economic damage. We also noted the political damage:

Every Republican statewide official (and most legislators) were elected on a promise not to raise taxes. This bill erodes the credibility of all future candidates and the ability of voters to hold said candidates accountable.

This violation of faith damages our democracy in incalculable ways.

The legislature listened to us in 2008. Will they listen to us now?

UPDATE:  Joining us, Susan Stimpson, Pete Snyder, E.W. Jackson, and Grover Norquist in opposing this are Corey Stewart, Steve Martin, both Attorney General candidates (Rob Bell and Mark Obenshain), the Family Foundation, the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance

The pdf version of the letter is…

Open Letter Regarding the Transportation Tax Hike (HB 2313) by Shaun Kenney