On Abandoning the Scientific Method, Continued

 In his 2005 book entitled ‘A Big Fix: Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’ Ian Lowe suggests that the global environmental situation is so desperate we abandon the traditional scientific method in favor of sustainability science.

Professor Lowe explains that sustainability science differs fundamentally from most science as we know it: ‘The traditional scientific method is based on sequential phases of inquiry, conceptualising the problem, collecting data, developing theories, then applying the results. … Sustainability science will have to employ new methods, such as semi-quantitative modelling of qualitative data, or inverse approaches that work backwards from undesirable consequences to identify better ways to progress’. 

This is really the ‘Chicken Little Principle’. If I say the sky is falling, then there is no time to go through the normal rigor of the scientific method, because by that time, the sky will have fallen.

Now Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the IPCC reports and key protagonist in the Climategate emails, is suggesting climate scientists abandon the null hypothesis.

Dr Trenberth’s upcoming address to the American Meteorological Society on 23-27 January 2011, in Seattle, Washington, is now available at the society’s website and he writes:

‘Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

‘Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as
“precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.

‘So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished.

‘On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms. Granted, the climate deals with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both.’

We know from the climategate emails that these scientists discuss strategies to have editors removed from journals, interfere with the review process and keep critical papers out of publication thus creating an exclusive body of scientific literature that fits the story they want to tell.   And now Dr Trenberth is advocating they also abandon the scientific method. 

Is this is an extension of Professor Lowe’s sustainability science concept, but with particular regard to the conclusions of past authoritative reports that claim the unequivocal? 

Anyway, Willis Eschenbach has penned a detailed reply which Anthony Watts considers a must read: Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Kevin Trenberth, by Willis Eschenbach

43 Responses to On Abandoning the Scientific Method, Continued

  1. val majkus January 16, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    a link to Dr McKitrick’s paper

    Yes, great letter and courteous too; we can all learn from that
    As to the null hyphothesis another paper
    Socioeconomic Patterns in Climate Data
    Overall we find that the evidence for contamination
    of climatic data is robust across numerous data sets, it is not undermined by controlling for
    spatial autocorrelation, and the patterns are not explained by climate models. Consequently we
    conclude that important data products used for the analysis of climate change over global land
    surfaces may be contaminated with socioeconomic patterns related to urbanization and other
    socioeconomic processes.

  2. Luke January 16, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Jen sez – “We know from the climategate emails that these scientists discuss strategies to have editors removed from journals, interfere with the review process and keep critical papers out of publication thus creating an exclusive body of scientific literature that fits the story they want to tell. ”

    And we also know from Deltoid, Tamino, Rabett, Realclimate and many others what sleazy sophistic bung-it-on arguments sceptics come up with ? Did I say “sceptics”…. choke

    Not defending Lowe either as he does go on ….

    Perhaps more important Jen is that some science problems are grand challenge problems – AGW is one – you have wiggles of natural variability, a myriad of interacting factors, decade to century time scales, socio-economics, multiple nation states, and no replicate Planet Earths to experiment on …


    Perhaps if AGW evolved to be a right wing cause – we’d already have nuclear power stations.

  3. Bronson January 16, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    Gee Luke and maybe if AGW truthers stopped trying to change the rules to fit their game it might be more believable.

  4. TonyfromOz January 16, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    If I may offer an observation here.

    When those who disagree with man made global warming/climate change point to individual cold winters somewhere and say Aha! No Global Warming, there is always a retort from those who do (religiously) believe that this is cherry picking one event out of a trend, and that the overall ‘trend’ shows warming.

    So then let’s hypothesize for a minute.

    That ‘overall trend’ is now taken over a long period of time, perhaps nearly one hundred years.

    Does it not then stand to reason that this exact same ‘trend’ argument is the same as their standard reply of cherry picking one small thing from the larger thing.

    That 100 year trend is now cherry picked out of the life span of the Earth, where warming and cooling have gone on for Millennia.

    Now I sit back and wait for the responses, and that also throws up another conundrum.

    Doesn’t it always seem to be the case that those who do believe have an answer for everything, usually with the foresight of 20/20 hindsight, that their responses are always right and responses from those who have questions are always wrong.

    (Also notice how I have assiduously avoided the epithetic terms of ‘skeptics’, ‘deniers’, and ‘warmists’.)


  5. Charles Colenaty January 16, 2011 at 1:51 pm #


    Today was the first time I’ve seen you listed in WUWT in too long a time. Glad to see you back!

  6. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    Don’t be shy, Tony. I am a member of the Deliati…and proud.

    A one-off weather event is just that, a block of years is an anomaly worth discussion. Seasonal forecasting is climate and who gives a toss about a 30 year trend, except as an interesting curiosity.

    The game is almost up for the warmists, recant now Luke and become a hero in your own lifetime.

  7. Neville January 16, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    The trouble is when you are dealing with some of these so called top ? climate scientists you are also unfortunately dealing with with some of the most unprincipled liars and con men you could poke a Mann hockey stick at.

    The climategate emails prove the length these corruptors will go to just to decieve govts and taxpayers out of more funding.
    Anyone caught behaving this way in business, i.e. to lie and decieve govts and taxpayers out of more public funding would be charged and brought before a court.

    Willis does a good job highlighting the discrepancies of the so called science and at times the dubious behaviour of the participating scientists.

    The tragedy is even if you actually believe in this CAGW nonsense there is nothing you can do to tackle climate change that would make the slightest measurable difference to temp, sea levels ,Arctic ice, Antarctic ice, drought, fires, floods, MDB, GBR, Kakadu etc.

    The best definition of belief is the belief in some system/ religion/ cult even though you have insufficient evidence or proof for that belief.
    In this case simple math can prove that there little practical difference the world can make to change the climate back to a better outcome for all the nations of the world.

    Even if we are prepared to spend trillions of dollars trying to change the climate, we will get a zero return on our investment.

  8. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    We don’t have to provide the level of proof, because it was the zealots who proposed the hypothesis, nevertheless we can take on the burden of proof showing that there is no human influence.

    Natural variability rules, while the AGW signal is virtually invisible. If the MSM gives equal voice to both sides of the argument, there will be a political sea-change in Oz.

  9. Luke January 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Why would the MSM give equal time to unpublished activists. OK let’s a start of long list of sceptic twaddle.

    Poor Neville – climategate only an event for the faithful. Apart from that – nothing. Corruptors indeed – what a libel spitter you are Nev. You have nothing mate. So go and bay at the moon.

    Neville being a denialist devotee loves to mention religion and cult in every little rant. Keep repeating the mantra mate. When you’re not doing that recycle some old sceptic bulldust.

    Willis eh? http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php Who knows? Some many tales. So few papers.

  10. Polyaulax January 16, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Shifting[not ‘abandon’] the null hypothesis doesn’t ‘abandon the scientific method’. Attempting to show there is no human influence on climate and natural variability is just as useful,and is surely what those who disagree with AGW strive to do with true scientific rigour…I wish. Really,is there anybody left who still believes that a geologically rapid dump of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no consequences? That the shag-pile carpet of natural variability will always mask the dirt pushed under it?

    Sorry,can’t stomach Eschenbach….to many misrepresentations,and too much hypocrisy

  11. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    The warmist argument is that the pattern in Australia of prolonged drought, interspersed with severe flooding events, will continue, but that both droughts and floods will probably increase in intensity throughout the 21st century as a result of AGW.

    The models are clearly wrong, direct historical observation shows that nothing untoward is happening with the Australian climate.

  12. Robert January 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Intelligence doesn’t help if you’re a zombie.

    For example, the densest flood clusters in my region – which is hardly cut off from the rest of Oz – came between the sixties and seventies, then again in the nineties.

    A zombie will instinctively want to to spin away the first cluster as old and poorly documented weather, then spin the second as climatically significant. It’s in the zombie nature. The more intelligent the zombie, the better the spin job, the subtler the disclaimers, back-door exits etc.

    And when the zombie is informed that the periods referred to were 1863-1875, and 1890-1893…he just gets all shouty.

  13. Luke January 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    El Gordo – hilarious – “models clearly wrong” it will take 30 years to get enough data to convince you ! But hey be convincing and put up a modelled prediction for Australian and how it’s been “proved” wrong. A citation pls not hand waving.

    In the mean time – just go on ignoring the science like a good chap.

  14. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    Let’s look forward instead, using the model predictions of ENSO at IRI.


    I fancy the COLA ANOM model as proof of natural variability.

  15. val majkus January 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    I started a conv with Luke in the flood crisis link
    Warwick Hughes http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=780#more-780 has a Guest article by Pat Frank
    Dr Frank says
    We’ve all read the diagnosis, for example here, that the global climate has suffered “unprecedented warming,” since about 1900. The accepted increase across the 20th century is 0.7 (+/-)0.2 C. As an experimental chemist, I always wondered at that “(+/-)0.2 C.” In my experience, it seemed an awfully narrow uncertainty, given the exigencies of instruments and outdoor measurements. I did a study which led to the paper that is just out in Energy and Environment [5]. Here’s the title and the abstract:

    Title: “Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit”
    (abstract follows and conclusion)
    This lower limit of instrumental uncertainty implies that Earth’s fever is indistinguishable from zero Celsius, at the 1σ level, across the entire 20th century.

    There’s a link in a comment to the above article by Geoff Sherrington
    to http://www.geoffstuff.com/Jane%20Warne%20thermometry%20Broadmeadows.pdf
    A Preliminary Investigation of Temperature Screen Design and Their
    Impacts on Temperature Measurements

    and as for me I’m still running in circles screaming and shouting; I can’t believe we’re getting so heated over such an infinitesmal temperature rise (if it exists at all)

    Luke’s response was this

    Especially for you Val



    As for infinitesmal temperature rises – it’s not the mean – it’s the changes in extremes, changes in circulation systems that matter – the small absolute change in mean is an old ruse argument. Indeed you only need a couple of degrees in sea surface temperature change to disrupt the whole cycle of rainfall in the southern hemisphere. How much to start an ice age onset. Trying thinking about it Val !

    Energy & Environment – lightly reviewed bunk. Use to start your BBQ.

    my response was

    Now I’m really confused Luke and impressed with your sidestep

    you say if I understand it that to ascertain if AGW is happening we should look at sea surface temperatures and not land surface temperatures and I assume you are in that case discounting global average temperatures,
    or are you saying that because AGW is happening then sea surface temperature becomes the yardstick as to its extremes or otherwise

    in either case here’s a graph which suggests no significant warming during the past 8 years.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/global-sea-surface-temperature-continues-to-drop/

    If in doubt run in circles scream and shout – I think I’ll just keep on doing that

    Nope – simply that land and sea temperatures tell the same general story in terms of trend. Others have now repeated mainstream analyses and gained the same answer. As do boreholes. As do satellite measurements.

    You could have said “no significant” warming many times in the last 150 years. There are annual, inter-annual, decadal wiggles and volcanism to consider. But the trend is basically upwards.

    And again – it’s not the average temperature change in itself – that’s just “an index” – it’s what happens to extremes of temperature, storms, cyclones, and rainfall and circulation changes (e.g. El Nino, Southern Annular Mode, Indian Ocean Dipole)

    Let’s look at a sceptic favourite data set – what does it tell you?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

    Cooling oceans? http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-1-Cooling-oceans.html

    My response to that Luke is this (and I’ve had a person much more expert than I am)

    You’re basically dismissing the idea of a global temperature rise and changing the goal posts to the variation around that computed mean. This means that if your argument holds water then statistically the variance around the mean must be increasing with time. This means that both minimum and maximum temperatures must be increasing while the mean remains more or less constant.

    If Pat Franks’ paper is considered, then the intrinsic error in the measuring equipment seems to be greater than the statistics so derived, and thus any computer trends mathematical artefacts.

    No numerical data are presented to support Luke’s case

    In any case Pat Franks’ work suggests that changes in temperature are not the forcings in weather that the CAGW group think it is, and that weather is being driven by other physical factors.

    So Luke what do you think and what do others think

  16. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    ‘An alternating preponderance of El Niño and La Niña is shown to be linked to the 22-year Hale cycle constituted by 11-year magnetic reversals in sunspot activity. La Niña prevailed in the cycle 1954-1976 and El Niño in the cycle 1976-1996.

    ‘This alternating pattern can be traced back to the Hale cycle beginning in 1889. A predominance of La Niña may be expected in the current 22-year cycle.’

    Theodor Landscheidt

    Yep, natural variability dominates any CAGW signal. It’s the sun, stupid.

  17. val majkus January 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    My point is this

    If there’s no discernable rise in GST

    If there’s no discernable rise in SST

    Where does that leave AGW

    lUKE’S response is that it’s not the average temperature change in itself – that’s just “an index” – it’s what happens to extremes of temperature, storms, cyclones, and rainfall and circulation changes (e.g. El Nino, Southern Annular Mode, Indian Ocean Dipole)

    Although I’m impressed with Luke’s sidestepping (he could almost be a quarter horse) my question is how many times do the goalposts have to be changed

    If we’re not warming Luke what are we arguing about?

  18. gavin January 16, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    Disgusting, pedantic, academic whatever arguments about the science form after Mother Gaia has given most Qld’ers a good poke in the nose in what is an event that is clearly way off the charts.

    In other threads the underground chat brigade examines the role of big dams but from what I see there few of us could hold a job managing customer demand in even the smallest water works or thermal power station.

    Your alternative sources of wisdom oft referenced to here WUWT, Jo, W Hughes etc must be busy hey, keep me wondering how the usual authors get time cause if they were any good on the subject of climate they would be all off earning big bucks and keeping us all out of high water

    We could start by asking what price a new pair of gumboots around SEQ? But there are other subtle signs like the North and South of Tassie being divided at the same time certain parts of Qld and elsewhere in other states go chart busting in their particular way.

    Take your pick as we lurch from peak to trough and back again but don’t hesitate buy glancing back at what might have been the odd cycle in its extreme and certainly don’t build up again under a dam wall.

    Also; those who choose to live on the edge of a marine environment from now on must expect the double whammy in every estuary and lagoon.

    Let common sense prevail with every surge in the Pacific. That means keeping switch gear and generators out of basements, water and sewage plants above flood peaks for the duration also finding a handy inspector in any level of infrastructure should never be a problem.

    Telstra; come home!

  19. spangled drongo January 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    “Really,is there anybody left who still believes that a geologically rapid dump of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no consequences?”


    Sceptics don’t necessarily claim it won’t. They just don’t believe in committing economic suicide over it.

    When the s/n is not really detectable, Plan B is the only rational response.

    Anything else is hysteria [or carpetbaggery], but certainly not science.

  20. spangled drongo January 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm #


    All you are saying is that we have had it so good weather-wise as a result of all that extra ACO2 in the atmo that when the weather patterns of the past finally return in some small measure, our over-supplied-with-technology-age gets caught out.

    So what does that prove?

  21. hunter January 16, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    I have been traveling and away from the news, but I can tell the floods have peaked since the Luke mob is back in snarlling bs form. I can guess also that the civil servant / enviro CYA tango has been successful.
    How long will Australians tolerate over employed civil parasites alternatively burning you up by not letting you manage the brush growth on your property, and drowning you because they buy into non-falisfiable crap and derail rational flood control?

  22. hunter January 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    Do you think it is reasonable that gavin pretends this flood even is off the charts?
    Do you think gavin is so ignorant as to have not seen the histographs that are freely available showing this flood to not be off the charts?

  23. val majkus January 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    I’m sorry Gavin feels the way he does but I still don’t understand why

    There have been worse floods in the past and someone previously on Jen’s blog published the BOM historical data

    And the worst Brisbane floods in terms of heights occurred before AGW became the blame agent for everything

    So Gavin what ‘chart busting’ are you talking about?

  24. gavin January 16, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    Val; although this is a rather wet blog, probing Luke this way does us no good

    Where is your basic understanding re climate science?

    C’mon, forget temp, what about evaporation, saturation, dew point, deep ocean circulation, deforestation, ground water and a host of other issues quite beyond the reach of some single interest groups bent on delayed response to AGW

    From a world of technology, research, measurements, engineering and communications, one learns to respect the less obvious references in addition to the mainstream. Sources of wisdom can be widely varied before focusing in a particular direction.

    Above I mentioned gumboots as it was an issue briefly on msm but I don’t expect everyone to get it immediately from such a review. However I am bothered when writers get stuck in a rut because it suits them to carry on parrot fashion with someone else’s rhetoric

  25. val majkus January 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    but Gavin I thought AGW was all about temp? The earth’s getting hotter and we’re all going to fry

    Isn’t it??

    Now you say it’s all about evaporation, saturation, dew point, deep ocean circulation, deforestation, ground water and a host of other issues quite beyond the reach of some single interest groups bent on delayed response to AGW

    So where’s your peer reviewed evidence for all those things?

  26. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    I don’t think you two have been formally introduced?

  27. gavin January 16, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    Hunter; WB. Now, what’s your history on gumboots re flash floods on Qld?

    Val, I forgot the key word “turbulence” so essential in the science of climate. Gee how could I do that after decades in the art of fluid measurement.

    BTW a cobber of mine probably pioneered some aspects of deep sea data logging from his new galv instrument manufacturing shed out in the Tassie bush at a critical time for our Southern Ocean research while I chased a few Agri biz projects needing better climate control in their process.

    Food production, storage and distribution remain my concerns even in retirement and so I bounce in here on occasions whip cracking after folk who don’t seem to know how hard it is to maintain adequate also uniform quality food in relation to world demand.

    Today I resold a rain gauge kit returned to market by the grand children for $7 knowing folk inc people here could well use one to get their own records straight. On the other hand my tomatoes in pots are flowering again up through the pergola after striking a bumper crop below its reason enough to think we are going tropical too.

  28. val majkus January 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    El gordo I just wonder where the goal posts went to? Did Gavin change them for wet gumboots and a telstra phone?

    I’ve got to go put my nose to the grindstone so good night everyone

  29. Neville January 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Poor delusional ol Gav. For your info have a look at this historic article from BOM and study the 2 charts of Brisbane and Ipswich floods from 1840.

    There has been no major flood in Brisbane since 1974 until this lower flood of 2011.

    But the period from 1887 to 1898 had five major floods, so for your sake get a grip on reality. Luke’s hopeless enough to deal with when you present real facts and numbers and we certainly dont need you to slide even further off the perch of reality as well.


  30. Neville January 16, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    Poly seems to be a red hot CAGW fundamentalist. So please Poly tell us how to fix this most important (?) problem.

    Let’s just say that you’re the new dictator of the developed world and everything you say must be done to the letter immediately.

    What would you do to tackle CAGW, but remember you still have that pesky developing world to deal with and unless you can assemble a standing army of many millions to pull them into gear they’ll give you the two fingered salute and tell you to go and get stuffed.

    Remember the developed world has been pretty much flatlining their emissions for the last 10 years, while the developers have been increasing their emissions at a real lively pace. I’ll give you all the graphs and charts you need out to say 2030 if you require them.

  31. gavin January 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    Nev; did you note the inconsistent nature of your two rivers from those bom charts? Lets also look here however we don’t get the current flood do we?


    Too easy hey

    BTW for the record I’m waiting for our ABS on the issue, job days and biz lost, concrete pours and so on

  32. spangled drongo January 16, 2011 at 8:42 pm #


    Have a look at this historic info on the Bris and Bremer Rivers and read the notes and it will occur to even you that we are getting less floods than we used to.


  33. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    It is not human influence making the world cooler, Sol remains fairly quiet.


    Unlike Professor Lowe, I haven’t been seduced by ‘noble cause corruption.’

  34. cohenite January 16, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    Thank you Poly in saying this: “Really,is there anybody left who still believes that a geologically rapid dump of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no consequences? That the shag-pile carpet of natural variability will always mask the dirt pushed under it?”

    This is the entirety of AGW and its good to see you Poly, a doyen of detail, facts, figures and occasional sense, confess it; and it is a confession, resonant with guilt and disgust; the “dirt” of humanity, the by-product of humanity’s temerity in spitting in sweet mother nature’s eyes as we slither, crawl and unjustifiably elevate ourselves above nature’s nurturing, sustainable restraints by the foul means of shoving CO2 under the carpet.

    It’s a great concept: a supposedly exceptional, unnatural, human caused befouling of nature where, despite crooked data and methods and no unvirtual reality evidence, the conclusion is still that world will end. But why stop with CO2; what about satellites; never in the history of the world has there been so much dumping of metal into the upper atmosphere; this is bound to attract rapacious aliens, distort the Earth’s magnetic fields or otherwise wreak havoc; and breast implants, sapping the moral fibre of humanity and poisoning the fabric which binds us. In short everything humans do is a gigantic threat; it doesn’t matter whether there is any evidence it is proved by the simple logic of who and what we are.

    This ratbag lowe’s plan to to get rid of the scientific method is just another plank in the necessary process of returning to a pure natural state of instinct and emotion. So, as I say, I’m glad you’ve come out in support Poly; because you’re one of the best pro-AGW bloggers and if even the best on that side can support this sort of social and cultural lobotomising then it clearly reveals what we are dealing with.

  35. Luke January 16, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    Now tell us Cohers – how do you keep it together with the flotsam and jetsam of disenchanted nutters that inhabit the climate sceptics party? How can you stand it mate …

    Neville’s back – on his old mantra and Poly needs to understand this logic – if it’s a most difficult problem it doesn’t exist ! Woo hoo ! Nobel prize stuff.

  36. el gordo January 16, 2011 at 9:47 pm #

    Gavin, this might interest you.


    Food security will be of paramount importance in a cooler world.

  37. Polyaulax January 16, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    There’s nothing ‘supposedly’ about the exceptional amount of CO2 we’ve put out,cohers.Hasn’t been done before.

    I’m with you,the world won’t end…but the way some of you carry on ,you’d think it would. Reads like a couple of paragraphs of a good red there…cheers!

  38. Luke January 16, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    Val – I now get it – you’re going down the “there’s been no temperature rise” ruse. For trucks sake ! Pity about all those wiggle watching denialist out there opining on every up or down motion in global temperature – they’re wasting their time. How do we know about global cooling then?

    And shame shame on poikilotherms for knowing about day degrees. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/teia-wci051208.php Look Mum – no thermometers

    Get real Val

  39. gavin January 17, 2011 at 12:29 am #

    When Val asked for my peer reviewed evidence, there happened to be a nature item on ABC tv re the Moby Dick legend and “thermocline” way out in the Pacific.

    Yours truly recalls that term being first used about the same time we started jiggling probes deep down in the sea south of Tas i.e. mid 70’s. At that time I had access to some of the best temp gear made in Japan and could debate the concept as a sceptic based on our experience with analogue thermometers.

    In terms of turbulence it was a bit like how elastic is your bubble when you push it with a pin and so us hard hats divided at the time but it seems we have come a long way since.


    so we live and learn. Tracking a global temp rise is a complicated project and novices should tread wisely. Counting gumboots is much easier given we are not that amphibious yet. However this link gives some idea of advances at the pointy end.


  40. hunter January 17, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    The irony of how Luke and gavin have morphed into denying the history of Australian floods would be delicious if their sort of thinking was not the cause of so much suffering.

  41. Neville January 17, 2011 at 7:55 am #

    Once again Gav, what’s your point?
    I’ve given you the correct Govt info from BOM for the flood history of Brisbane and Ipswich that shows this flood event in metres is not at all unusual. ( less than 1974)

    Also don’t forget this is probably the strongest la nina since 1917, so once again totally natural cause and easily explained.

    The fanatical Bob Brown lunatic has just blamed this flood event on the coal industry so Gav, Luke and Poly must be proud to be in the company of this intellectual pygmy.

    Luke are you really that dumb? You’re the one who believes in CAGW not me and yet you’re the coward who won’t even give a timid response and tell us how to fix this most important moral challenge of the century.
    Alas poly lines up as fellow jelly back as well.

  42. Luke January 17, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Hunter – please cite where I have denied the history of Australian floods. Failure to cite or any hand waving means you’re a denialist turd. PUT UP !

  43. el gordo January 18, 2011 at 10:41 am #

    Professor Lowe undoubtedly believes sea levels are set to rise at a fix rate, in line with CO2, yet the rate is slowing down.

    ENSO appears to have a major impact on sea level rise, so with fewer El Nino in the coming decade we can expect a drop in sea level.

    This should be a relief to the home owners of Randwick.

Website by 46digital