More ABC Bias, But Anyway

I should probably be flattered to be invited on to the popular ABC TV program Q&A as a panelist.  But why is the promo for the program next Monday advertising Tim Flannery as ‘scientist’ and me as ‘climate sceptic’?

Tony Jones could refer to us both as ‘scientists’.  Alternatively the promo could suggest Tim is an ‘alarmist’ and me the ‘denier’.

I am not even a climate sceptic… but rather sceptical of what was the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming.

Anyway, it would be good if there were a few other so-called climate change sceptics at the event…  and also some people who don’t believe more water for South Australia will necessarily solve all the environmental problems of the Murray Darling Basin.   So, I am encouraging readers of this blog to try for a place in the studio audience next Monday by applying here:
And you can send in questions via email using this link

Also, the annual Australian Environment Foundation Conference is this Saturday at Rydges in Brisbane.  Max Rheese is organising a Q&A session at the Conference dinner on Saturday night, to give me some practice in advance of Monday, October 18th.  Apparently there will be a ‘Tony Jones’ at the dinner and through him you can ask me questions.  It should be a lot of fun.  You can register here:

, , ,

67 Responses to More ABC Bias, But Anyway

  1. gavin October 12, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    Good one Jen!

    It seems like a great chance for “sceptics” here to test the waters on several big issues. Deep down though I fear they will fail again to post a victory on the night.

  2. Neville October 12, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    Good luck Jennifer, but how does Flannery have the hide to appear in public anywhere after his hopeless predictions have all blown up in his face.
    Ditto the Happy Feet clown.

  3. Neville October 12, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    Gee Gav Tim has been so accurate over the last several years hasn’t he, I can just see Jen striving to have a record like that.

    Also you well know the strong bias at the ABC, eg tell me one Q&A show that hasn’t had more lefties than conservative/ right guests, just one ?

    Then of course there’s Tony as left as you could wish for and as hopelessly inaccurate on CAGW.

  4. spangled drongo October 12, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    Give it to ’em, Jen.

    You have a great “normalcy” when you speak which gets the message through very well and it’s what people need to hear when being fed the usual ABC/Flannery tripe.

    But just look at the Panel!

    Is this all? Has the ABC gone bonkers?

    This panel looks BALANCED!

  5. Corri Baker October 12, 2010 at 11:34 am #


    I totally agree that pigeonholing people into “climate sceptic” labels is not constructive.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t seem to find any publications in scientific journals that you have published since 1998, while Tim Flannery has published over 130 scientific papers.

    The fact that you don’t seem to be a practicing research scientist at the moment might explain why Tony doesn’t label you as a scientist.

  6. Corri Baker October 12, 2010 at 11:43 am #


    My apologies, I found the link from your blog to your website, and found some scientific journal publications from as late as the year 2000 not 1998 as I mention in my prior topic.

    Please correct me if there have been others since then.



  7. jennifer October 12, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    Hi Corri

    What do we mean by a scientist? According to the oxford dictionary it is “a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”
    My expert knowledge in the areas of entomology in which I published during the 1990s did not cease when I stopped publishing in this literature.

    Moreover, the knowledge accumulated from many years of working as a field biologist continues to provide a foundation from which to assess all kinds of data, including, for example, technical papers on tree rings as proxies for climate change.

    Of course it is evident from the Climategate emails that a group, centered in the UK, will go to great lengths to deny so-called sceptics the opportunity to publish in the peer-reviewed literature including through the removal of editors and stacking of review committees.

    The issue of excluding those who do not conform extends beyond climate science. My work on the Murray River when I was at the IPA, in particular the publication of ‘Received evidence for deterioration in water quality in the River Murray’ caused much grief within CSIRO Land and Water including the resignation of at least one member of staff and a reprimand from the then Federal Minister for Science and Technology.

    A consequence was my subsequent exclusion by many within academia and subsequent threats from the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) to the University of Queensland … preventing me from being made a co-supervisor to several PhD students.

    Of course it is difficult to publish in the peer-reviewed literature when ‘the union’ has you black-listed for being a whistle blower.

    On a more positive note, I am now an adjunct research fellow at CQ University and back into publishing in the peer-reviewed literature with ‘Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation’ by John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy recently published in Environmental Law and Management (Issue 1, Volume 22) and ‘Has the Herbicide Diuron Caused Mangrove Dieback: A Re-Examination of the Evidence’ recently accepted for publication by Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. There are others in the pipeline.

  8. jan October 12, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    good luck being shut down and ridiculed

  9. John Sayers October 12, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    I just sent Q&A the following email via their contact page.

    Could you please explain why you describe Tim Flannery as a scientist and author yet describe Jennifer Marohasy as a climate sceptic. Dr Marohasy has as much right to be described as a scientist and author as Dr Flannery otherwise you should just refer to Dr Flannery as a climate warmist!

    Your bias at Q&A never ceases to amaze me.

  10. Graham October 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    Best wishes for your round in the bear pit, Jennifer!

    You may consider asking the panel, and Jones in particular, if they have actually read literature that comprehensively demolishes climate alarmism, such as Prof Plimer’s Heavan+Earth and Prof Carter’s easy read, Climate: The Counter Consensus.

    It would be interesting, too, to witness the reaction of the panel to the latest pivotal event when an eminent physicist, Em Prof Hal Lewis resigned in disgust from the American Physical Society, expressing his revulsion over the “global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    Anyway, they’re only suggestions. I’m sure you’re the best judge! Just know that you will have thousands out here cheering you on.

  11. cohenite October 12, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Corri, you have got to be joking; some Flannery tid-bits:

    As Neville has shown above, Flannery has made and continues to make outrageous predictions about the coming AGW apocalypse; he has predicted every capital city of Australia will be a dustbowl; in every case after making these predictions every city has received bountiful rain; at one stage people living in drought stricken parts of Australia were begging Flannery to come to their place and make a prediction about drought knowing that rains were sure to follow.

  12. Rosie Young October 12, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    Left a message on the Q&A website re. the title they have given you – just wondered if you had read Hal Lewis’ letter of resignation to the American Physical Society – it’s on the Watts Up With That website. Cheers.

  13. Rosie Young October 12, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    Oops, sorry, Graham – I see you have already put up the Hal Lewis’ resignation link. Cheers.

  14. Luke October 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    Graham – you need to get out more – Heaven & Earth was shredded. Pullease. What a wonky book – how many 100 errors?

    But standing up for Jen – Flannery won’t have published on the core climate science either – he’s probably taking it as read. So given they’re both intelligent people doesn’t matter on balance.

    Problem for Cohenite is the dismal showing of the Climate Sceptics Party (really just a property rights movement front) and the spectacular showing of the greens.

    Strange that people think that given it has rained that somehow this disproves AGW? It does?

    Hal Lewis’s letter resignation – fair nuff – but really who cares – is he doing the climate science? What has he given us except a spit.

    So Jen on the night – it’s very hard in these forums to actually say something different and useful.

    It’s all up to you to save us from the tedium !

  15. John Sayers October 12, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Heaven & Earth was shredded. Pullease.

    where specifically Luke? care to elaborate?

  16. spangled drongo October 12, 2010 at 8:48 pm #


    Plimer was caught out exaggerating on those undersea vents.

    Y’know, the ones that science and Tony Jones know so much about:

  17. Graham October 12, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Luke said
    “Strange that people think that given it has rained that somehow this disproves AGW?”

    Well, that was the strength of Tim “Empty Dams” Flannery’s burble. Epic fail.

    There are a number of events that disprove AGW, e.g. geological records showing temperature rise ahead of CO2 increase and, more recently, episodes of cooling despite steadily increasing industrial CO2 emissions.

    Conversely, there is no proof of AGW. None. Nor can there ever be. It’s disproved. (Projections generated by compliant computer games are not proof.) AGW is a dead duck, mate!

  18. Corri Baker October 12, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Thanks Jennifer,

    What do mean by a scientist, or more importantly a climate scientist, yes that is the question I was thinking when I posted my comment to you. I feel as though any people think that anyone with a three year science degree is qualified to make assertions on this issue.

    Thanks for that information about your background, I had also read some articles and info about you on your website, very interesting to see where your PhD ended up taking you. (I’m at a crossroads in that regard at the moment). I guess I’ve got such a short background in science, and given I’ve only worked in a university, I’m probably showing my elitism by not recognising the IPA as provider of independent research…but forgive me, as it is a right-wing think tank after all. 😉 So, I should correct myself in that I do think you definitely should be regarded as a scientist, but of course I just alluded to the reason why Tony may use the label exclusively!

    But, to address some of your comments re the scientific community, is not the “stacking” of review committees merely reflective of the views of established scientists? Researchers had established scientific positions through their research on the various climate issues long before it became so politicised that it has got to the situation that you describe where you are “shut out” of publishing. But I agree that the kind of situation that has evolved due to politicisation does not do the debate any favours.

    However. If I wanted to make up scientific data in order to make a packet of money or whatever other benefits, I would have to join the “sceptics” side. There’s money and support there. Can’t say the same for the other “side”. I find it incredulous that people think that scientists that are simply presenting the facts of their research are somehow involved in some self-serving conspiracy. Anyway, at the end of the day, its not about “sides”, its about balanced research. If the research shows that 99% of studies show evidence for anthropogenic warming, its ludicrious to fund research soley on the basis of trying to get equal amounts of data from both “sides”.

    As for those sceptics here in previous posts suggesting Ian Plimer (a lecturer at my uni) and Andrew Bolt are credible sources of balanced research/arguement from the sceptics, know that you are not doing your sceptic buddies any favours! I suggest taking prose from these two with a grain of salt, or shoud I say, enough salt to put the salinity levels of the Murray-Darling to shame.

    I’m really looking forward to intelligent debate next Monday. The incessant prevalence of emotive and non-scientific rubbish on the net on both sides, and comments like some of these on this blog slowly drive me to suicide.



  19. Luke October 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    Graham – what tripe – you haven’t swallowed the denialist Kool Aid have you.

    As for Flannery on dams ? who cares? is Flannery a climate scientist citing known work? Or is it his opinion or fear?

    “geological records showing temperature rise ahead of CO2 increase” – what would you expect in the glacial record – irrelevant tosh – try the PETM for more like it !

    “episodes of cooling despite steadily increasing industrial CO2 emissions.” COOLING – what cooling ?? Do bung it on ….

    “Conversely, there is no proof of AGW. None. Nor can there ever be” Well that why you’re a denialist mind closed to the abundant evidence and a major sucker for sceptic scamming. Fancy running the glacial CO2 ruse. Mate this is an evidence based blog.

    And fancy citing that pensioner scaring crank and blog shock jock – Bolt – pullease ! It’s a daily froth fest over there designed to get you all angry and upset.

  20. Luke October 12, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Plimer even has a Deltoid “special” section.

  21. spangled drongo October 12, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    “Anyway, at the end of the day, its not about “sides”, its about balanced research. If the research shows that 99% of studies show evidence for anthropogenic warming, its ludicrious to fund research soley on the basis of trying to get equal amounts of data from both “sides”.”

    Corri Baker,

    Here’s my 800 studies showing evidence to the contrary, now where are your 79,200?.

  22. Jennifer October 12, 2010 at 10:04 pm #


    I was interested in your comment that in order to ‘make a packet of money or whatever other benefits’ you would join the sceptics side?

    On what basis do you hold this view? What evidence? It is my experience that the sceptics are most always the odd one’s out … they mostly end up losing their jobs etcetera because it is so unfashionable. And it is their kids who get picked on at school etcetera.

    I gather Jo Nova has done a review of ‘where the money is’ … have you seen this?

    Does anyone have a link?

  23. Luke October 12, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    Simply irrelevant distraction from the science Cohenite. Simply invites a pile of vested interest stories of who’s who with who on Sourcewatch etc. Take this bit of fluff from WUWT for example – wonder who the author is?

    Congress of Racial Equality indeed (LOL !)


    rose coloured glasses indeed ! There are massive vested interests at stake

  24. Corri Baker October 12, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Oh, ok, cool! (For want of a better word) if there’s so much money in being a “warmist” then it will only be a matter of time before we start seeing governments get serious about environmentalism, and stop seeing the degradation of our natural environment and mass extinction of species across the globe. That’s the real issue in any case.

  25. Luke October 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm #

    Anyway Jen – all sledging aside – what’s new – what’s actually worth saying that hasn’t been said already? (at QANDA)

    Does anyone change their view? Have many swapped “sides”. Would seem from the election results (like them or not) that the greens have done fairly well – especially your chardonnay swilling Melbourne urban type green.

    So despite all the pronouncements that AGW is kaput – climategate etc – Geophysical Research Letters and Journal of Climate are still pumping out the science. Quietly and steadily.

    The other problem is wiggle watching – hanging off every nuance, dip and bend in the RSS temperature trend. Things aren’t going to change all that quickly. Surely this is decade by decade stuff so whether it was hot/cold/wet/dry recently – like whatever – who cares. The sceptics are all cock-a-hoot that it’s rained. Well let’s hope it does and it has. But how soon till the next drought and what frequency of wet vs dry is the real issue.

  26. Corri Baker October 12, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    It would seem that the banks aren’t doing tooooo badly out of coal fired power stations, and all while still reaping the *HUGE* financial reward that comes with claiming to be “green”.

    (I can post links too. ;P )

  27. hunter October 12, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    You are at least as much a scientist as the fear monger they are putting you next to.
    ABC should be pressured to properly name you, at the very least.
    It is nice to see the true believers still pretending that their apocalyptic claptrap is just fine, nothing wrong here.
    Of course what is being said anew is that not prediction of imminent catastrophe by AGW hysterics has ever panned out.
    What is being noticed by more and more people is that AGW is an extremely dysfunctional social movement akin to eugenics.
    And all of the sanctimonious dodging by Luke or gavin does not make it less so.
    Welcome back to the fray, Jennifer, and congrats on your personal achievements!

  28. hunter October 12, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    You claim to be a scientist.
    One of the key attributes of a scientist is to check assumptions.
    Why don’t you dig a bit and see who is getting money and support before putting down so many words on the topic?
    As to self serving, why not? After all , you seem to be comfortable with skeptics being in it just for the money.
    Why not anyone else?

  29. gavin October 13, 2010 at 7:12 am #

    Gals, guys; this discussion is tedious because imo none here can fairly represent the plodders, those folk with their hands on real climate science. The issue of AGW will not be resolved by some fancy academic rhetoric or glib writings by those looking over others big square shoulders.

    The point about who is entitled to wear the white coat on the job is hollow two. When it comes to the practice of technology, I think about those miners still trapped underground in Chile and wonder about the rescue team and their advisers as a whole. Experience in physics and engineering is what counts most in all critical measurements and that’s usually a trade in itself when applied to a particular task. Climate Science is no exception.

    Btw there is a lot of labs where us technical folk don’t wear a lab coat over gum boots etc.

  30. Brian Gunter October 13, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    Very Long-term Temperature Trends

    I have looked at long-term temperature trends at various worldwide locations and cannot find evidence of alarming recent temperature increases (except in urban locations, as one would expect). Maybe this is a point for Jennifer to bring up on Q&A next week.

    The longest temperature record that I can find is from the small town of De Bilt in Holland where there are 300 complete years of temperature data since 1706.

    Jennifer, I wish you well on Q&A on Monday night. Hopefully the discussion can have a significant scientific basis and not descend into the usual emotional and political chatter.

  31. jennifer October 13, 2010 at 7:50 am #


    Yes, the banks might be doing well… but not the environment.

    And the government … well Julia Gillard apparently believes in AGW, but I doubt she really cares about or understands the natural environement.

    This idea that if you are a ‘denier’, you don’t care about the environment is bunkim.

    I am sceptical of the consensus position of climate change, and I care deeply about the natural environment.

  32. James Mayeau October 13, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    Of course it is difficult to publish in the peer-reviewed literature when ‘the union’ has you black-listed for being a whistle blower.

    Instead of debating each others guess work, which only plays into the hands of the consensus, I hope that Jennifer will play toward her strength by calling out the phonies.

    Global warming litigation today isn’t about the weather. It’s about corruption. And there are few individuals more, deeply in the tank, on the take, prostituting themselves, selling out the public trust, then Tim Flannery.

    Be brutal and honest, as if our futures depended n it. Because they sort of do.

  33. Luke October 13, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    More nonsense “Of course what is being said anew is that not prediction of imminent catastrophe by AGW hysterics has ever panned out.” – typical Hunter – what’s your published journal cite? Corri this is called veballing.

    “Eugenics” hey – gee Hunter I read on the internet somewhere that sceptics are all Martians – so must be true then.

    The problem Dear Hunter is that there is virtually no serious published sceptic science unless you mistake the no review E&E as a publication. So that would tend to indicate it’s a social movement not a science.

    And politically virtually no votes for the sceptic party but heaps for the Greens.

  34. Luke October 13, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    ” And there are few individuals more, deeply in the tank, on the take, prostituting themselves, selling out the public trust”

    Well gee James – who would they be?

    So on the take means they have personally taken money or a bribe in exchange for changing results. Like cricket fixing. So put up or shutup !

  35. gavin October 13, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    “De Bilt is the primary meteorological station of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service (KNMI) and therefore can be presumed to be of high quality”

    Sorry, but we cannot go back 300 years anywhere and be certain about instruments, temp records or methods of error resolution re climate change data today. Here is just one issue in sampling.

    “a special screen has to be developed as the best balance between the application of impacts reduction techniques and sensing the real air temperature”

  36. Corri Baker October 13, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    I am glad to hear we are on the same page Jennifer. I totally agree that if you are a “denier” you may still have a deep love and concern for the natural environment. I can imagine that having grown up in a rural environment, this would have affected you deeply, as it has for me.

    This is why I get so frustrated with NGO’s such as Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation etc. They seem to care more about maintaining their set views than supporting balanced science, evidenced by their stance on nuclear for example.

  37. Corri Baker October 13, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    Now this is a link for everyone!
    Get ready for the culture wars, science.


  38. gavin October 13, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    We should get back to this apparently vexed question of bias in the ABC. While I find it strange, I suppose these ABC critics have a another msm outlet in mind? I say use it or loose it!

    Graham; junk science on blogs won’t do

    One thing I learned while working and living around mining towns was this inherent development of trust that underpins all operations regardless of time and people. The smallest team has to trust the both the preceding gang and the next. Although the hard yards in sampling are only a bunch of drill cores, it’s enough to proceed into the next stage. Decisions have to be made in advance of what is allowed to fall behind as you go. Sure the mine history is relevant but what’s most important is the trembling of the moment

  39. hunter October 13, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    The fallacy you suck on like a tobacco addict is the argument from authority.
    Please come back and play when you have something new.

  40. Graham October 13, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    In their study published in Annals of the Association of American Geographers, scientists Quiring and Sherman ask questions that may well be appropriate to direct at the Q&A panel. After analysing 150 years of temperature records they concluded that “it will take a long time” before any effect of greenhouse gases on global temperature can be identified against the background noise of “natural climate variability”. They ask

    “Do we charge ahead with international agreements and policies, or do we do nothing?

    Do we save money for our grandchildren’s future or do we try to save the climate, not knowing if our efforts will have any effect?”

    More frankly,
    Do we proceed to gut our grandchildren’s economy with a price/tax on carbon (dioxide) in the forlorn hope that there may be a flicker of life in the AGW carcass?

  41. Jennifer October 13, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Thanks for that ‘Question’. I am thinking about my answer.
    Also, you could post it on the board at the Q&A website – or perhaps send it in by email?

    Luke and others,
    What about some questions, framed as per. Grahams/as they do on Q&A, for me to think about answers. … would be good practice for me.

    Also, what are some of the other issues that might be covered on Monday night – additional to climate change and water?

  42. spangled drongo October 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    “Anyway Jen – all sledging aside – what’s new – what’s actually worth saying that hasn’t been said already? (at QANDA)”

    Jen can do the world a great service by refuting this crap. I just heard the end of Flim-Flam on ABC on Richard Fiedler’s “conversations” spouting on about the eradication of coal fired power and general fossil sourced energy as being the equivalent to the abolition of slavery in the 19th century.
    Maybe he should change the name to “How” On Earth. I mean how on earth can you equate the abolition of slavery with reducing the earth’s warming by 0.006deg c and wrecking everyone’s SOL.

  43. spangled drongo October 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    “This is why I get so frustrated with NGO’s such as Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation etc. They seem to care more about maintaining their set views than supporting balanced science, evidenced by their stance on nuclear for example.”

    Corri Baker,

    So true! Us “deniers”, as you choose to call us, at least can see this too.

    If only those green bleeding hearts were genuine?

    Also WRT your above link, when the “expert” climate scientist is seen by laypeople to make such errors in their computer modelling [among other things] their low level of scientific understanding begins to show through.
    In the hard sciences these laypeople are happy to accept their own low LOSU and respect the experts. Laypeople aren’t silly. But when they see low LOSU sticking out a mile amongst the “experts” well, democracy rules, OK?

  44. spangled drongo October 13, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    I should have mentioned Flannery’s new book is “Here on Earth”.

    Have you read it Jen?

    Sounds like a great comedy script but I shouldn’t prejudge.

    I think Flannery tries to be all things to everybody.

    At least he still sticks by Hope, Love, Trust, Belief and the Free Market System.

    Maybe he’s a closet denier.

  45. Brian Gunter October 13, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    Gavin makes fair comment about the variability of temperature data from different instrument enclosures. Does anybody know what types of instruments/enclosures were used at De bilt over the past three centuries?

    But my analyses, at many stations, show a surprising consistency in temperature trends prior to 1900 and since then. So, to me, this gives me considerable confidence in the overall consistencies of the records.

    Hey, some even people adopt early temperatures based proxies such as tree rings or CO2 content of ice cores, so my use of the recorded thermometer readings doesn’t sound too bad!

  46. Luke October 13, 2010 at 8:23 pm #

    OK Jen

    Backdrop – greens did well in recent election, 3-4 independents probably pro-AGW – maybe pro carbon tax…. Gillard moving the subject to a special committee

    So despite the protestations here the political balance of power is up for it !

    (1) Let’s assume (madly) you believe the broad findings of the IPCC and take a median scenario of 3C for a doubling of CO2. The question at QANDA should be – what improvement on that outcome would happen should Australia alone in the world halve its greenhouse emissions.

    (2) Let’s assume you think CO2 is doing nothing new at all. Presumably Australia still needs a climate policy thanks to climate variability – tropical cyclones, east coast lows, ENSO and IOD etc. So what is it? And given sceptics have trashed the climate science temple – how can you now even have a climate science? Based on what?

    (3) take a “Luke”-warmer view of 1-1.5C at worst. Steve Short area. Can we simply adapt?

    (4) science uncertainties – clouds, water vapour feedback, decadal oscillations/variability – real sceptic areas

    (5) What would it take for Jennifer to think the risk of drought in Australia was getting worse?

    (6) who really knows anything about climate and atmospheric physics seriously – anyone on the panel?

  47. Luke October 13, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    Graham 8:23am – mate – Nova and Wattsup and their recycled anti-science news have been repeatedly shredded by forces of light (realclimate, deltoid, open mind, eli rabett, james annan, chris colose etc ) so often now that I’d take their word as “source”

    Sources of misinformation. Hardly worth even commenting further. I suppose you could go worse and hang around Andrew Bolt’s place or read the Australian. Yawn.

  48. gavin October 13, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    Brian; having looked at the station records on your page, I have to say in general , there is not enough to go on with out adjacent station comparison and perhaps its only the first and last pair have enough decent data to follow any long term trend.

    Also I don’t believe the max or min averages such as they are do anything much for the naive scientist doing hindsight climate observations through past decades of weather records. My rule for disputed process charts in any situation was first ask the operator, then check the instrument and follow up with a test run that included all concerned at that time. With something like closed loop Ph control that one lab sample per shift could waste a lot of acid and gas the workforce overnight.

    In this era of automation, let’s have continuous monitoring please. That’s something we can do easily with glaciers, SL and a few other flat earth strategies despite our turbulent atmosphere.

  49. Jennifer October 14, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    Luke, thanks for the thoughts including ‘backdrop’ and questions.

  50. Phil October 16, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    I think the ABC is guilty of playing fast and loose with the term ‘scientist’.

    For example, as far as I know, Flannery’s core expertise is in paleontology, not climate. His opinions on climate are the same as any other self interested individuals, and no authority should be attributed to his ‘status’ as a scientist on this topic.

    It’s like the old newsreels of reporters asking Einstein what he thinks about DNA…

    some integrity and rigor..pffft

  51. William Gray October 16, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    Humans change the climate. Yes we do and have always done. Here is Katoomaba Australia its raining sleet/snow- more sleet. We had snow fall regularly but that changed wonce the Warragamba dam was built. Its really ablessing to have the sleet/snow again.
    So this C02 fixation on warming the planet is true but it doesn’t and wont drive local changes.
    Contribut yes not drive.
    I’m a greeny and I’m tired of this scientific group think.

  52. James Haughton October 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    Why are you called a “sceptic” and Tim a “scientist”?
    Maybe it’s because he’s recently published articles in the peer reviewed literature on past climate change and extinction events – and you haven’t?
    Maybe it’s because he doesn’t give a free soapbox to every lunatic who claims that the rotation of the planet is driven by electricity, Velikovsky was right, oil is abiotic, the core of the earth generates more heat at the surface than the sun does, the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, physics must be changed in order to “prove” that climate science is wrong, etcetera, etcetara – and you do?
    Or maybe it’s an indication of the thinking behind inviting you both on the show, and what you both are considered able to contribute to public debate? When your next round of misrepresentations is uncovered, are you going to claim that everything you say is Socratic Irony again?

  53. Steve October 18, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    Jennifer, you chose to quote the Royal Society report “Climate Change: A Summary of the Science” tonight on Q&A where you said the report stated there has been no warming since 1970. Is this not a little disingenuous, given that the report says say the warming “has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000”? This demonstrates that the 20th century warming was not in a straight line but does not suggest that the warming has suddenly stopped or reversed. You did not state that warming also ‘stopped’ after 1940. Where is the evidence to suggest the period from 1910 to 1940 was any different to 1975 to 2000? The trend is up. What evidence have you seen to suggest, as you were doing, that the trend has changed?

    The report also states:

    “When these surface temperatures are averaged over periods of a decade, to remove some of the year-to-year variability, each decade since the 1970s has been clearly warmer (given known uncertainties) than the one immediately preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15 deg C warmer than the decade 1990-1999.” I believe this is quite self-explanatory yet it is at odds with your contention tonight on Q&A.

    The report also says “observed variations in global temperature over a period of just a few years could be a misleading guide to underlying longer-term trends in global temperature” yet this is exactly what you attempted to do.

    The report is a reinforcement of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming, so I am very interested to know why you chose to quote from it when the vast bulk of the report is completely at odds with your position? Do you tell your blog readers to read that report, or would that be a little inconvenient? Isn’t this one of the tactics of choice for most AGW sceptics, to cherry pick a line or a phrase which can then be morphed into supporting your position rather than the original intent of the report?

  54. Kahnwos October 18, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    After watching your appearance on qanda tonite it is clear that you do not
    contribute to scientific argument. Rather, you cherry
    pick single pieces of data, taken out of context, to
    spread confusion and encourage denial. Why? Because there’s a buck to be made
    no doubt. U shd be ashamed of urself. Go
    get a real job instead of dragging humanity down.

  55. gavin October 19, 2010 at 6:35 am #

    Well, I nodded off during our St Mary and beliefs question and that was that. Sorry

  56. Kahnwos October 19, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    For any unsure as to the extent of confusion about the climate change argument I encourage you to read this post.
    feel free to skip the first four orfive paras if not to your liking. The rest of the article sums it up quite well though.

    And this website is a great resource for understanding the science behind the skeptics’ arguments.

  57. Kristy October 19, 2010 at 9:26 am #

    Hi Jennifer,

    I watched you on QandA and i think you did a great job. I fully support all the statements you made, and it was refreshing to hear the truth said on TV. Tim Flannery is just good with PR, which works for the easily swayed uneducated. But i live in the Murrumbidgee, and i know that the river isnt dead and that the alarmist views that Tim plays are just part of his political agenda. It is bleedingly obvious from my point of view. Unfortuntely the vast majority of the climate change believers have never seen the Riverina and have no idea of Australias natural drought cycles, that many older residents stand-by without faltering.

    Thankyou and keep up your brilliant work!


  58. Brian Gunter October 19, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    Jennifer, you did fine last night’s Q&A given the poorly organised programme and the very limited time available to discuss climate change. Far too much time was spent talking about other matters (St Mary, Afghanistan, Murdoch, etc) when the show was promoted as dealing with climate change. Greg Hunt (an economist) worries me a lot as he seems to have no appreciation of science at all – and that is what climate change is primarily about. And Mike Kelly (a lawyer) is only slightly better. They both make Barnaby Joyce look good – at least he lives in the real world! I would have preferred a more detailed discussion (but one controlled by Tony Jones) between Jen and Tim – I repeat, this is a scientific matter and deserves serious scientific discussion.

    I very much liked the end bit where you spoke about the removal of the barrages on the lower Murray lakes. Apart from returning Lakes Alexandrina and Albert to their natural (prior 1940s) state this would also save about 900GL of lake evaporation (750 km2 x 1.2m/year) that is at present planned to be supplied by the river. This would allow a lot of flexibility in reallocating upstream water allocations, and the necessary reductions in water allocations could be significantly reduced. Sure, the SA farmers around the lakes would need to be compensated but this would be less than the proposed action on upstream farmers. The lower lakes would then return to being a beautiful salt-water estuary, the mouth will be kept open most of the time for free (using the tidal flows) and the town of Goolwa will have a beautiful waterfrontage again. Lets keep promoting this option to our politicians and to the public.

    PS I am a civil engineer / hydrologist (I think that almost makes me a scientist too!) so I appreciate what Jennifer is doing and I will give her whatever support I can.

  59. toby robertson October 19, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    James it is “unreasonable” people who dare to think outside the box and do not blindly accept what is taught, that are responsible for most of the giant leaps forward that humans make. Sure often ideas appear to be crazy, but the reality is often not as it appears and a small change in your paradigm can turn the crazy into the sensible. There are some crazy ideas put forward on this blog. Is there something to learn from their ideas….often, but more importantly it is those that dare to challenge the orthodoxy and status quo that are ultimatley likely to be the critical thinkers this planet needs. Not sheep that blindly believe what is taught as “gospel”.

    Science has been blatantly corrupted by politics and business. It is crucial that those capable of real thought are given the opportunity to speak. Self interest underpins what most people say and do. I dont trust politicians, I dont trust businesses and I no longer trust science.
    I do live in the magnificent yarra valley however, surrounded by a loving family and bush and wildlife, so life is really pretty good…except when i worry about all the idiots out there who want to take control of my life and tell me what to do. I have no doubt my morals and ethics trump most and yet I keep having other peoples ethics and morals shoved down my throat.

    It is hard to think of many decisions made by government that are not guided by self interest, manipulated science and bad politics. We need critical thinkers to point out the error in their thinking.

    It seems quite bizzare that greens come from an environment of concrete and believe we are destroying the planet. Whilst those that live in the environment and care deeply mostly despise the greens and their big brother mentality and are far more optimistic about our future.

  60. James October 19, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    I am someone with no interest and no stake in the climate debate. I have no credentials as a scientist, I have not followed the issue, I do not know anything about the science.

    What I do know is that if you’re on a panel discussion show, you respect and obey the moderator. I also know that common courtesy dictates that people not be constantly interrupted. I also know that, given that the point of a panel discussion show is to allow a bunch of different views to be presented, it’s unfair and illegitimate for one guest to constantly interrupt others.

    Jennifer, you were the most atrocious guest that QANDA has ever had, and that is saying something. You constantly talked over Tim Flannery (especially at the end), didn’t follow any of moderator’s polite directions to allow people to finish, didn’t finish your own speeches when he indicated that you should, and generally disrespected the show, the moderator, and the guests.

    A moderator has to deal with vibrant debate but also boring things like timeslots. If he tells you to shut up, SHUT UP. It’s for a reason (like, perhaps, the show is about to end and it’d be nice if at least one other person got to say something in the final five minutes). If he tells you to let someone finish, SHUT UP. It’s for a reason (like, perhaps, the fact that you weren’t interrupted and he’s just trying to ensure equal treatment).

    If the ABC have any brains, they’ll never invite you back. If any other media organisations were watching, you’re probably stricken from them as well.

    What an own goal you just scored.

  61. James Haughton October 19, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    Genuinely unconventional thinkers put forward new ideas. Jennifer has devoted huge tracts of internet to putting forward old ideas that are already debunked, physically impossible (as in massively violating the conservation of energy), or both. As Carl Sagan said, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” The ideas put forward here in the past are firmly in the “Bozo the Clown” camp.

    Furthermore, as Jennifer’s performance last night shows, she wilfully misleads about what the facts and the science show. For example, she claimed that there had been no warming for the past 10 years. Here is a graph of temperatures from the past 10 years from her preferred source, the University of Alabama-Huntsville, Roy Spencer proprieter:

    As you can see global temperatures have increased by 0.1 degree in the last 10 years alone. Since Jennifer also stated that temperatures had increased by less than 1 degree since 1900, not only has there been warming since 2000 but the warming since 2000 has been faster than the century+ long trend which she acknowledges. Jennifer knows this. She is a disgrace to her science qualification and her university.

    The blind sheep I observe are the ones who believe everything that the Murdoch press and the coal and chemical lobby (aka the IPA) says, for example “Science has been blatantly corrupted by politics and business”, or “the greens have a big brother mentality”. I don’t see what’s “big brother” about a carbon tax or ETS. Carbon emitters can emit all they like; they just have to pay for the privilege of inflicting the consequences on the rest of us. It’s no different from a tax on cigarettes, and it’s the economically efficient, free market method of solving the problem.

  62. Steve October 19, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    Well said James Haughton! I agree carbon polluters should have to pay for the privilege i.e. a price on carbon. Bring it on.

  63. toby robertson October 19, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    James a carbon tax or an ETS will do little to cut co2 until a new technology is found. Anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Currently you buy carbon credits for 10c! that’s how much value the market places in them! fossil fuels are currently an inelastic demand product, a price rise causes little change in consumption. Do you really believe that price rises in ciggies have been the reason for decreased consumption?

    Temperature is currently around or still below temps reached during the MWP as well as the RMP and the Minoan Warm period. So why so concerned?
    Comments that we can only explain the temp changes by adding co2 have 2 major flaws.
    1. they rely on models and they are no good at predicting.
    2. We know that a 1% change in cloud can account for all of the warming that is being blamed on co2….how good are our records?

    How anybody can think a o.1 c increase over 10 years is significant is beyond me!?
    We had swings of several degrees after the dalton and maunder minimums so the 0.8c over 100 years is not as so many suggest “unprecedented”.

    Temp goes up and down, climate changes.
    co2 is a greenhouse gas and we should be grateful for greenhouse gases.
    Yes adding co2 creates an additional warming effect but only minor and the more we add the slower the increase becomes.

    most of co2’s warming is done in the first 50ppm.
    The only way to create a problem out of this co2 is to rely on positive feedback effects. Now these may occur, but it is more likely that we have negative feedback effects which will counter the influence of co2. I know you can point me to the PETM as a likely consequence of positive feedback but other than that history is littered with evidence that it is negative feedback effects that dominate.

    Humans undoubtedly alter climate on a local scale, and they probably do on a global scale to a lesser extent. However there is doubt irrespective of how certain some appear to be.

    Currently we have targets to produce 20% of energy from “renewable” sources. Basically all current “renewable” energy is hydro. solar and wind are basically making very minor contributions. But guess what? Nobody will let us build any dams, so no new hydro energy.

    Nuclear? clearly capable of producing much of the energy we need in a country with abundant supplies. But the “greens” those bastions of the planet will not even consider this option.

    Until we find a new technology there is no way global co2 will be cut. Thinking otherwise is naive indeed. Unless of course some major catastrophe occurs such as a “plague” killing off billions of people. It is far more likely however that population will continue to grow and they will all want a “modern” lifestyle.

    So explain to me why Australians should suffer great hardship due to higher prices to achieve little to ntg . My understanding is current targets of 20% if done on a global scale will cut temp by such a small amount nobody would ever know. Is that wrong?

    But I only have to look at current govt policy to know that costs and benefits are irrelevant in this modern world of ours.

    Personally I’m not into moral gestures and platitudes. And that is all we are seeing and hearing from all sides of politics. I mean seriously if the greens really believed in catastrophic climate change ( the only kind to be concerned about…warmer is better than colder isnt it?…so it needs to be a big increase to worry), they would be pushing nuclear and hydro, they would not be pushing desalination plants that burn energy and create expensive water and massive co2 emissions ( unless of course you hooked up the nuclear plant and used its heated water!). We can build dams for fractions of the cost and create cheap energy.

    The green however, are really anti consumption, because consuming uses resources and being rational is a long way down on their list. Hence they refuse to build dams that create cheap water ( 2 buckets do collect more than 1 bucket?…..yes when it rains, but plenty of that lately) and cheap hydro energy. They would rather build expensive desalination plants that require massive amounts of energy. And if you really believe these desal plants are being or will be powered by renewable energy I can only throw back my head and laugh.

  64. Chad Elliott October 20, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    First I would like to give credit to the comments above by Toby. I agree whole heartedly.

    Hi Jennifer,

    Im afraid you took a bit of a bath on Q and A this week. Everything about the programme was set up to bring you down and it would have taken a Mary McKillop miracle for you to come out of that unscarred.

    I am disgusted with Tony Jones, Q and A, and Tim Flannery. The way Tim sat there pulling faces during your opening remarks on climate change was completely childish and correctly betrayed his character. Like most “prominent experts” his success is proportional to the degree that his own opinion supports the aristocratic agenda. Those with the right opinion and likeability are sponsored into prominence to further the agenda.

    Im glad you went on the show because many of us quiet sceptics have found an ally purely through the exposure of national TV, but im certain the opinion of climate believers and the government has not been changed. Apparently the facts don’t matter anymore.

    The only way us independent thinkers will ever be heard in this environment is if we band together and focus concentrated effort. We need petitions. We need sponsorship. We need leadership. Any suggestions?


  65. Muz November 23, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Probably too late but saw you rabbiting on on Q and A about the fact there was plenty of water in WA. As a so called “scientist” you should endeavour to be a little more honest. Here’s a link that may pique your interest. .

    Oh and stop speaking over the top of the other panellists next time. You come across as rude and shrill.

Website by 46digital