Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A lukewarmer's history | Main | Munk's sea-level enigma »
Monday
Jan192015

The unintended consequences of climate change policy

I have a new paper out at GWPF, looking at the unintended consequences of climate change policy. This has been a long time in gestation, but I have to say I'm pretty pleased with the results. Those promoting climate change alarm should really be ashamed of themselves.

London, 19 January: A new paper by Andrew Montford and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the unintended consequences of climate change policy around the world.

We are constantly told about the risks of what climate change might bring in the distant future. In response, governments have adopted a series of policy measures that have been largely ineffective but have brought with them a bewildering array of unintended consequences.

From the destruction of the landscape wrought by windfarms, to the graft and corruption that has been introduced by the carbon markets, to the disastrous promotion of biofuels, carbon mitigation policies have brought chaos in their wake.

The new paper surveys some of the key policy measures, reviewing the unintended consequences for both the UK and the rest of the world. Mr Montford is a prominent writer on climate change and energy policy and has appeared many times in the media.

“The most shameful aspect of the developed world’s rush to implement climate change mitigation policies is that they have often been justified by reference to ethics. Yet the results have been the very opposite of ethical.” said Mr Montford.

“Andrew Montford has reviewed the sad truth about various schemes to ‘save the planet’ from the demonized but life-giving gas CO2: from bird-killing windmills, native peoples expelled from their ancestral lands, to fraud in the trading of carbon credits. Every thinking citizen of the planet should read this,” said William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (76)

I see Russell is still trying to get readers to look at his ankle-biting blog. Perhaps he should try to achieve perspicuity in his writing style - and also to use words with their accepted meanings.

Jan 20, 2015 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Noel Darlow:

If you don't already know why CO2 poses a threat - despite over 25 years of very public warnings - I suggest that you read some books.
So, explain to we ignorati quite what threat CO2 poses. You see, the books that most of us are reading explain that CO2 is an odourless, colourless, utterly non-toxic gas, that we exhale in huge quantities without harming ourselves, even should we be in a closed room at night; these books also explain that plant growth depends upon CO2, and that many who grow plants in greenhouses actually increase concentrations of CO2 to increase the yield. Quite how that could be construed as a threat in any way whatsoever escapes me, and, I suspect, many others reading your diatribes.
*real peer-reviewed scientific papers by competent people published in reputable journals not GWPF reports
When you are in a hole, it is usually a good idea to stop digging. The Bishop’s excellent work has been peer-reviewed, even if only by many on this site, and the Bishop has shown himself to be highly competent; presumably, what you mean by “reputable journal” can only be a journal that you approve of. All I ask is that you look at your own views rather more dispassionately, and consider that they might actually be displaying your own bias and prejudice, before launching into a rant about another’s possible flaws.

Jan 20, 2015 at 1:45 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@Kim

"a warmer world supports more total life and more diversity of life"

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, even on Bishop Hill.

Unmitigated climate change will cause a mass extinction and, from the fossil record (Kirchner 2000), we can see that it takes anything from a few million years to a few tens of millions of years for biodiversity to recover. That is a period of time so large that it is very likely greater than all of the rest of the history of the human race.

At the end of this period the anthropogenic warming pulse would have long since ceased and temperatures would have normalised again. CO2 hangs around for a very long time but not forever.

Thus we are not about to create your idealised, warmer world, vibrantly full of life. We are about to permanently eradicate large numbers of the species which we know today. Biodiversity will eventually recover - it always does - but it will take a very long time.

Jan 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoel Darlow

@Mike Jackson

"You.. appear.. to believe that "science" depends on what some "scientist" has written.

Did you really just say that..?!

"So I can write anything I like and until someone refutes it it's a fact, is that what you're saying?

Almost. Scientific papers aren't composed of random thoughts. They consist of formal, technical arguments at a very high level created by people with real competence in the field. If you have competence, if you can craft a formal technical argument, if your ideas can pass the basic sanity check of peer review, then yes: that qualifies as scientific knowledge - until such time as it might be refuted.

That last point is very important. Science is never exactly "settled". There is always scope to improve on what we think we know but, in order to be accepted, a new idea must be expressed as a formal, technical argument which can pass the basic sanity check of peer-review and then stand up to subsequent scrutiny.

The door is always open but at the same time the bar for entry is set high. That's exactly as it should be and the rules are the same for everyone.

Jan 20, 2015 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoel Darlow

@Radical Rodent

The GWPF is an anti-scientific lobbying organisation. It is not a scientific journal and it's output can in no way be compared to peer-reviewed science. GWPF reports are highly-biased opinion pieces with some extremely flaky arguments.

Jan 20, 2015 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoel Darlow

The door is always open but at the same time the bar for entry is set high.
High enough to exclude postal clerks in all probability. It would be fascinating to see what would happen if Einstein had been submitting an equivalent paper on climate circa 2000. It would never have seen the light of day even if Phil Jones had had to redefine peer-review to keep it out.
Having read through your contributions to this thread, it is difficult to work out whether you are blind, bigoted or just plain dishonest. Your 2.37 reply to Kim suggests the latter. Nobody has as yet produced any evidence to suggest that returning the earth's temperature to that of the Roman Warm Period will cause mass extinctions. There is more than sufficient evidence from history that humanity thrives — physically, intellectually and commercially — in warm periods and tends to decline in cold periods.
Over the last half-a-dozen years there has been a stream of papers (some peer-reviewed, some not, as if that made a difference) arguing quite cogently that we are not heading for Thermageddon. The fact that for some obscure reason you refuse to consider the possibility that they might be worth at least considering points to blindness and bigotry.
True science progresses by debate, trial and error, and an openness to new ideas. Climate psyence progresses by closing the mind, attacking anyone who disagrees, and a healthy dose of outright mendacity thrown in.

Jan 20, 2015 at 3:22 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Yes, Noel, that is one of my most powerful bit of ridicule for the alarmists. But please note 'sustains', not 'supports'. Ponder that sustainability part.
=====================

Jan 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

OK, Noel, I'll finally bite:

1) The GWPF is concerned with policy (the hint is in the "P"). Does the scientific threat justify the policy response? This is not something that climate scientists are best placed to answer since they don't have professional expertise around other policy priorities that also have pressing and worthy claims for resources (personally, I would like more spent on clean water in Africa). They can merely inform the debate with their best understanding of the single area of threat in which they have expertise.
2) If the climate change debate was just "science", like the search for dark matter, then I and many others would not spend our time worrying too much about it. But it isn't, is it? The agenda fundamentally involves making changes to individuals' lives through policy. I reiterate - this is not science.
3) The academic policy angle on climate change is complex, with many key debates being driven by the precise distribution of climate sensitivity and other currently unknown parameter values. This is definitely not "settled" even within the IPCC reports. Sensible, peer-reviewed, arguments have been made on both sides in leading journals with no clear winner yet emerging.
4) I, like others on this site, have contributed to this peer-reviewed literature, advised international policy makers on the subject, yada yada. That doesn't lead me to undervalue the importance of blogs like this or grey-literature papers.
5) The secret is not to think about the publisher of a paper, or the motivation behind the person writing it, or anything else except identifying explicitly where the potential errors might lie. I don't think you have gone to the bother of parsing the Bishop's paper (and yes it is a paper) for us yet.

Jan 20, 2015 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterHoblinMango

Excellent paper Andrew and much needed.

Jan 19, 2015 at 2:44 PM | Phillip Bratby

Philip, you didn't proof read your post! :)

"In fact weind power cannot provide electricity for any of the three functions of generators"

In the proof reading stakes, I am pleased to have proof-read Harold Ambler's excellent book, "Don't Sell Your Coat", site link in Andrew's blog roll and review here at Tallbloke: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/book-review-dont-sell-your-coat-by-harold-ambler/. Buy it for the misinformed layperson, (no personal financial interest).

Some great typos can be seen here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2012/oct/25/worst-typos-pictures

Jan 20, 2015 at 4:48 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Noel Darlow:

Unmitigated climate change will cause a mass extinction…
erm… where is your evidence to back such a claim? Oh. The dog ate it. Fair enough.

As history has shown us that a warmer world supports more total life and more diversity of life, I am not too sure why you take such umbrage at that statement.

We are about to permanently eradicate large numbers of the species which we know today.
Again, evidence to back this claim up would be useful to your argument. Just because you believe something might happen does not mean that something WILL happen.

Mike Jackson is quite correct: science is the human interpretation of a fact; the facts will not change, but the interpretation might; hence Newtonian physics has been replaced by Einsteinian physics. This is what might be referred to as “Evolution of Thought” – but, then, you might not believe in evolution; however, you do appear to believe in the infallibility of peer-review. How sad.

The GWPF is an anti-scientific lobbying organisation. It is not a scientific journal and it's [sic] output can in no way be compared to peer-reviewed science. GWPF reports are highly-biased opinion pieces with some extremely flaky arguments.
Evidence? Ahh, that pesky dog again, I take it. How about examples; you no doubt have plenty of those to hand… ah. The dog, again.

You really are not very good at this debating thing, are you?

Jan 20, 2015 at 4:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@Mike Jackson

"True science progresses by debate, trial and error, and an openness to new ideas."

Scientific knowledge is the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted. No more and no less.

Fields of scientific research are usually highly specialised and so those engaged in debate and experimentation must first have the competence to make a meaningful contribution. Also, if they want to add to our sum knowledge, they must ultimately produce a formal, technical, publishable argument.

That's how science works. The rules are the same for everyone.

Incidentally Einstein's theory of special relativity was in fact published (Annalen der Physik).

Jan 20, 2015 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoel Darlow

You do seem to have a limited range of thought, Noel. What you said was more or less right: “Scientific knowledge is the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted.” BUT, those published papers depend on Mike Jackson’s argument: “True science progresses by debate, trial and error, and an openness to new ideas.” The publishing of papers is merely the end result of MJ’s process, they do not appear out of nowhere, as if by magic, as you seem to be intimating. Without debate, experiment, trial and error, and openness to new ideas, no knowledge can be gained; it is these vital components in science that the present climastrologists are missing, hence the only conclusion to be reached is that the entire glowbull warbling scene in nothing but a scam.

Jan 20, 2015 at 6:51 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

N. Darlow,

Scientific knowledge is the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted. No more and no less.

So in your (extraordinarily naïve) world view, 'science' cannot exist outside the absurd publication orgy that most of academia has become? That will come as news to many organisations that make £billions from their privately owned scientific research facilities and who publish very little. The fact that knowledge may be unavailable to the public does not prevent its utilisation.

Meanwhile, yes, we all know Einstein published his work. What *you* may not be able to grasp is that it was not peer-reviewed.

Jan 20, 2015 at 8:01 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

Noel Darlow; you are in luck! I just happen to be the developer of an anti extinction tablet which is most efficacious in every way. One tablet a day will protect you from becoming one of the 27,000 species a year that are going extinct. Does it work? Of course it does. Have you seen any bodies lying around? For a small endlessly recurring fee I can provide you with a supply that will last until the end of your world. I have also developed a face mask with a patented re-director tube which prevents evil toxic CO2 from being accidentally re-inhaled when you walk forward into the wind. It does look a bit like a limp dick so will not be out of place on you. It will help you survive the coming holocaust which nobody can deny!
P.S should you not want to survive I must tell you of my misfortune in being a Nigerian Prince who's vast fortune is held in a foreign bank by the ignoble junta that rules my country. If you can give me all your bank details I will send all my fortune to your bank and allow you a 10% commission. That sum should be enough to purchase a bridge that I happen to own. I keep it on the Thames, it has two opening sections and can be easily dismantled by the buyer. By the way you are the winner of the Canadian Lottery and if you send me a small registration fee I will forward your prize. Did I mention that I work for Microsoft and if you switch on your computer and follow my instructions I can check it for viruses?
What is it like to be as gullible as you?

Jan 20, 2015 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterivor ward

Scientific knowledge is the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted. No more and no less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As my esteemed co-commenter SayNo etc has already noted, this is an absurd proposition. My grandma had a secret recipe which produced magnificent fruit cake. It was, if you like, an example of practical chemistry and physics. It has never been published, and alas is now lost. But in her time, it was scientific knowledge.

Farmers and graziers know a myriad of things which help them to manage their land and produce more and better crops and animals. It is scientific knowledge, although it may never have been published, let alone "peer reviewed".

The notion that academic journals are the total repository of reliable knowledge is bunkum. As I noted above, it is profoundly anti-intellectual, and an attempt by academics to create a priesthood populated solely by themselves.

Jan 20, 2015 at 10:55 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

"Scientific papers aren't composed of random thoughts. They consist of formal, technical arguments at a very high level created by people with real competence in the field. If you have competence, if you can craft a formal technical argument, if your ideas can pass the basic sanity check of peer review, then yes: that qualifies as scientific knowledge - until such time as it might be refuted."

For Noel to widen his perspective:

http://retractionwatch.com/

Jan 20, 2015 at 11:58 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Rules of trolling are clear. If at the bottom post on topic T you find yourself responding to commenter C about topic U instead, you have been trolled by C.

enough of this noise!

Jan 21, 2015 at 12:54 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

I respectfully disagree, omnologus.

Attacks on the Bish's paper on the grounds that it is not part of the "scientific canon" are very much on topic. Our lone (and not very bright) dissenter has raised a critique which will be repeated in the wider world. Giving it a good working-over here is well worth doing, not only for the readership, but also hopefully for the Bish himself when these points are raised in public fora.

Jan 21, 2015 at 1:01 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

"...
The limits of what one can reasonably claim about matters of science are defined by the set of published papers* which have not yet been refuted. No more, no less.

If you want to comment on matters of science you must take the trouble to ensure that any statements which you make are supported in the literature. If they are not, they are not meaningful.

If you don't already know why CO2 poses a threat - despite over 25 years of very public warnings - I suggest that you read some books.

*real peer-reviewed scientific papers by competent people published in reputable journals not GWPF reports"

Noel, Noel, what is that? Leon spelled backwards?

The premise of establishing a scientific statement is that one first proves their theory!

There are no proofs for actual effects of CO2 in the open atmosphere. Theory, no matter how many 'peer/pal review circle jerks' approve a paper for publication, are not proofs.

There are also no proofs for any of the supposed catastrophic effects or events caused by CO2! In spite of alarmist attempts to rewrite extinction events as CO2 driven; every one of their rewrites ends up drawing on the author's belief that CO2 is involved.

No proof means no scientific progress towards knowledge!

"Almost. Scientific papers aren't composed of random thoughts. They consist of formal, technical arguments at a very high level created by people with real competence in the field. If you have competence, if you can craft a formal technical argument, if your ideas can pass the basic sanity check of peer review, then yes: that qualifies as scientific knowledge - until such time as it might be refuted."

You really haven't read many scientific papers Leon. The more you read the more you'll wish that authors for papers sent in for 'peer review' took more than one or two writing courses; especially that they take courses on clearly conveying their points and correctly framing their support arguments with logically organized observations.
Instead the relatively clear papers are the rare ones.

Why are you so obsessed with 'peer review'? Particularly after the CRU emails clearly identified climate team members colluding to subvert 'peer review', deny honest access and punish publishers who acted against the climate team's desires.
Careers have been ruined.
Employees (editors) have resigned.
Scientists have been repeatedly refused, rebuffed, or denied when submitting their papers.
Climate team members have gloated in their blocking papers from receiving peer review.
Lots of low quality scientists worshipping the CO2 demon are making a lot of money and getting lots of luxury exotic trips on the public dime. Where before they'd lead dull boring profitless jobs as befits their contributions towards science.

Peer review is a relatively modern twist for publishing a scientific paper. Given how rapidly the process was perverted by the egotistical and daft into blocking contrary science research, why would anyone rigidly support 'peer review'?

'Peer review' is not a process that requires degrees, certifications, awards or honorariums. All it requires is someone to with an idea or concept to write up their research and get it published. Readership originally performed the 'peer review' whereas the current concept of 'peer review' is that a tiny subset of individuals help less than scientific editors vet papers for publication.

The current 'peer review' fails science when biased individuals 'protect' their or their 'friends, co-conspirators' work by preventing publication of a paper. An action that may be good for a day, a week, or even a decade, but eventually real science will out and the false science revealed.

"...yes: that qualifies as scientific knowledge - until such time as it might be refuted."

Which is not how science works. The 'peer review' paper serves to propose a theory until solid proofs backed by observations gathered by multiple independent researchers are presented to 'cement' a theory into scientific knowledge.

Data, math, code, process and all results are necessary for independent researchers to accurately replicate experiments. Sadly, most of the climate team and their ilk have not and do not share all necessary components to their research.

If 'peer review' truly worked, most of the climate team's submissions for the past 10+ years would've never been published. That Lewandoodleowsky's and Cooks bullsh would have been laughed out of the offices of Mad Magazine, let alone a science journal.

Jan 21, 2015 at 1:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

Data, math, code, process and all results are necessary for independent researchers to accurately replicate experiments. Sadly, most of the climate team and their ilk have not and do not share all necessary components to their research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, within limits.

Cooks know that even with the master/mistress' data, math, code, process and all results doesn't mean that you can replicate the original.

Scientists' insistence that their road is the only road leads to dumbing-down. For example, weather records kept by farmers and graziers since long before official records began are routinely discarded and even (in the case of Willis Eschenbach) derided as anecdotes of no value.

I am a huge fan of the scientific method, but to suggest that it is the only font of knowledge is arrogant and just plain wrong.

Jan 21, 2015 at 2:40 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

I have just come to a conclusion: Noel the Troll is an altar-boy in the religion of Global Warmin'. Not fully adult yet, but despite that, he is eager to prosletyse but, sadly, doesn't understand that science is not contained exclusively within the world's universitys and institutes, nor is it practiced exclusively by those with lots of letters after their names. Science is both a method and a state of mind; scientific debate is not merely a matter of throwing silly ad-homs at those one disagrees with.
Noel; fervour, ignorance and ad-homs are a nasty, uncivilised and very anti-science mixture. If you must prosletyse, learn some scientific facts and methodology first.

Jan 21, 2015 at 3:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Alexander K - I agree.

Tony Brown's work in pulling together a bunch of material with the CET is what I call proper science and research. Of course, he is not a recipient of the billions thrown at "proving" that we're all gonna fry, so he does it out of his own (modest) funds.

He has repeatedly called for a Big Oil cheque to help him out, but like Godot, it never comes.

Perhaps he should try a hashtag. : )

Jan 21, 2015 at 5:05 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Unmitigated climate change will cause a mass extinction...

Warning, we seem to have a Branch Carbonian in the house.

Jan 21, 2015 at 7:42 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Ivor Ward
That is priceless! And you've discovered a new source of medicinal compound, I see. We are all saved!!

Jan 21, 2015 at 9:53 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

It's most unfortunate for Noel Darlow that he has not had the benefit of reading the (2010) Muir Russell report. Had he done so, he could have learned how ill-informed his views of (in this instance) "peer review" really are.

There's an Appendix to this report all about ... "peer review". I have quoted and sourced several excerpts, written by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet including:

[p. 131]:

“Everyone – scientists, the public, policymakers, politicians – would like to believe that peer review is a firewall between truth and error (or dishonesty) (15). But as the editor of one leading specialist medical journal has rightly pointed out, ―There is no question that, when it comes to peer review, the reviewers themselves are the weakest (or strongest) links”

[p. 132]:

“Unfortunately, there is evidence of a lack of evidence for peer review‘s efficacy

[p. 139]:

“The best one might hope for the future of peer review is to be able to foster an environment of continuous critique of research papers before and after publication. […]

Perhaps Darlow prefers not to sully his mouse by following the link to my blog - and let's face facts, folks: The full Appendix is 20 pages, which (considering his "responses" in this thread) may be too much for Darlow to absorb and comprehend.

As perhaps a more acceptable alternative, Darlow could read a piece that Horton published in the Guardian on the heels of the release of the report, in which he wrote:

The climategate review could spark a new culture in science research and take peer review off its pedestal

[…]

[Muir Russell’s Report] is a forensic and deeply critical analysis of what took place in the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia over many years. Russell concludes that the university fell badly short of its scientific and public obligations. It needs radical reform.

[In his conclusion, Horton wrote:]

[S]cientists need to take peer review off its pedestal. As an editor, I know that rigorous peer review is indispensable. But I also know that it is widely misunderstood.

Peer review is not the absolute or final arbiter of scientific quality. It does not test the validity of a piece of research. It does not guarantee truth. [...] [my bold -hro]

Jan 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

@HoblinMango

Sure policy-making expertise is different to scientific expertise but all policies designed to address a scientific problem must defer to real science, specifically the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted.

You are correct to say that science isn't settled. It never is. We can't confidently project future changes on small scales of time or geography but we certainly know enough to see the big picture of a dangerous long-term trend. The weight of evidence for this is not just at the level of "balance of probabilities" it's "beyond any reasonable doubt" and has been for some time now. Climate science has a very clear message for policy-makers: we must stop burning fossil fuels just as fast as we possibly can. Good policies will be consistent with this aim. Bad ones will not.

"I, like others on this site, have contributed to this peer-reviewed literature, advised international policy makers on the subject"

Really? Who are you?

"I don't think you have gone to the bother of parsing the Bishop's paper (and yes it is a paper) for us yet."

Please. The GWPF is an anti-scientific lobbying organisation. Their "reports" are not even close to being technical papers. If you truly had a career in scientific research you would know this.

So far I'm the only one who has actually quoted the report in question so it is difficult to accept criticism that I have failed to read it.

.
@Radical Rodent

"you do appear to believe in the infallibility of peer-review"

That's not what I said at all. Peer-review provides a basic sanity check. That's all. The real test comes post-publication when the paper is scrutinised by the wider scientific community.

.
@ATheoK

"The 'peer review' paper serves to propose a theory until solid proofs backed by observations gathered by multiple independent researchers are presented to 'cement' a theory into scientific knowledge."

OK new ideas gather weight as time goes on. I gave an operational definition intended as a guide for meaningful climate discussions. To be fair, you have to allow people to argue anything which is supported in the literature. That doesn't mean everything in the literature will turn out to be correct. Some ideas will be refined or even abandoned as time progresses. However the crucial point is that we must restrict ourselves to real science, as best we understand it at any given moment in time.

.
@johanna

"The notion that academic journals are the total repository of reliable knowledge is bunkum."

The examples you gave of home-baking and farming are actually awash with ignorance, superstition and self-appointed "experts" - as well as some real knowledge, of course.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about a "total repository of human knowledge". We were talking specifically about science and science has evolved a culture of publishing and peer-review *specifically* to reject ignorance, superstition and self-appointed experts. If you have a significant, original scientific idea it must be expressed in the form of a technical paper and submitted for publication. If you can't do that you can't claim to have a valid idea. It's really very simple.

This is incredibly frustrating for those who are stubbornly determined to insert their own ignorance into a scientific debate but then that is exactly the purpose.

Jan 22, 2015 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoel Darlow

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>