- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


March 2012
« Feb   Apr »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Endorses More ‘Junk Science’

ELEANOR HALL: Australian delegates to an international conference on global sustainability delivered a warning today that the earth is reaching a point where it’s changing beyond our control.

  Almost 3,000 scientists have been in London for the conference to discuss the relatively new field of earth system science.

That’s how the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) began a story today on ‘The World Today’.

Want to really know what the conference is about and how qualified the scientists delivering the message about tipping points are?

Read ‘The Royal Society’s Blatherfest’ by Donna Laframboise here:

Donna Lafromboise is the author of ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ all about the IPCC and how unqualified its ‘experts’ are.


80 Responses to “Australian Broadcasting Corporation Endorses More ‘Junk Science’”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: Robert

    Yeah, the 20th century sea level rise. I blame Al Jolson, Al Capone and that shocking new Charleston dance. Actually, the rot started when women stopped wearing bustles.

  2. Comment from: Luke

    And some fodder to boggle the woggles – major Australian climate change scientist attacked by mad greens.

    and rebuttal here

    It’s nuclear or it’s climate change. So much for sceptic framing.

  3. Comment from: Robert

    And then, like the water wasn’t gettin’ high enough down at the wharf, they start sendin’ up them Sputnik things.

  4. Comment from: Neville

    So unless we change to nuclear power we have to expect CC? Who dreams up this idiocy, I thought at least BB had a bit more common sense than that.

    For the zillionth time, “the climate changes naturally all the time”, get over it. We could close down OZ and the entire OECD tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the weather, climate or the temp.

    We shouldn’t be doing anything about reducing co2 via us or the OECD countries because simple maths tells us it just can’t achieve anything. In fact a zero return for spending all those billions for decades to come.

    But we should sensibly spend any spare borrowed $ on R&D and adaptation and who knows we may find or unlock some new cheap way of cutting back on co2 because it’s much cheaper to do so.

    Juliar and her lying numbskulls only worry about reducing co2 if it’s sourced from Aussie useage. They are quite happy to increase coal exports overseas every year to supply all those countries with the means to out compete Aust in the market place and produce more jobs and industry for anyone/everyone but Aussies.

    In the meantime we’re left using useless, unreliable, super expensive solar and wind power. This provides a guarantee that the Aussie economy must suffer and become more inefficient into the future. What a colossal fraud and con just to cripple Aust and Aussies.

  5. Comment from: el gordo

    Thanx spangles, on your instigation I found a Envisat graph at Steve Goddard and it shows a downward trend in SL over the past few years.

    Nuclear won’t gain traction over coal in the minds of the electorate and Barry Brook is flogging a dead horse. Three cheers for La Trobe Valley common sense.

  6. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    Luke, I can’t be bothered with arguing with you, you are a natural born naysayer.

    There is an old concrete pier about 2Ks down the beach at the Chelsea Lifesavers, I talked to locals and they say the water at the highest tide used to run over the top, now it doesn’t happen unless there is a strong southerly wind is accompanying the tide.

    Are you telling them that the pier has risen a few inches?

    The sea is not at the same level everywhere, you should, and I know you know it, but you still can’t help but pushing your catastrophist line.
    Get out of the office a bit more Luke!

  7. Comment from: Debbie

    Yes Luke,
    a long term decline in Autumn rainfall can be plotted, so can sea level rises.
    Problem is, those figures make sweeping assumptions based on long term averages that do not recognise that different areas behave differently and perform in direct contradiction to the long term trends.
    The more useful work is the work that drills down into specific areas such as catchment areas.
    The long term averages are almost next to useless as a tool because of the massive variabilities.
    That also applies to sea level rises.
    The assumption inherent in the PR is that we can control and manage the climate based on those long term average trends. Further claims are being made that it is getting out of control and we MUST do something about it.
    It is political rhetorical nonsense.
    I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t keep researching climate trends and climate variabilty but I seriously question the stated justifications for using long term average trends as policy making tools.
    The climate and the natural environment are not interested in conforming to long term average trends on a global scale.
    To some extent we can influence it at a regional scale but even that is subject to inexact ranges.

  8. Comment from: Robert

    Some say the water hasn’t risen so fast since the A-bomb. Others reckon it slowed down around the time that Harold Holt went for his long swim. Hard to tell when you’re dealing with millimetres over long periods. Being scientifically inclined, I’d have to go with an ocean connection and say it was Holt.

    So, that’s the science all nicely settled. For more settled science, buy my book: Don’t Lower the Atoll, Raise the Ocean.

  9. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Robert, it’s that soft rubbery bottom. Like a big bladder. Auto adjusts with the extra weight.☺ And Darwin worked out about the floating atolls 175 years ago.

    But seriously, with the atolls, why are they mostly circular with a central lagoon?

    Could it be that 10,000 years ago they were dead volcanoes that the coral has grown 100 meters upon since the end of the last ice age?

    Like they say, not a freeboard problem, just deck space.

  10. Comment from: spangled drongo

    We don’t know how lucky we are [dum de dum]:

    “This generation has experienced more peace, freedom, leisure time, education, medicine, and travel than any in history. Yet it laps up gloom at every opportunity. Consumers do not celebrate their wonderful field of choice and, according to psychologists, say they are “overwhelmed.” When I go to my local superstore, I do not see people driven to misery by the impossibility of choice. I see people choosing.”

  11. Comment from: Luke

    JW , I can’t be bothered with arguing with you, you are a natural born denier. Sea level rise is complex with local effects, weather changes and decadal up and down signals. As well as channel conditions between Queenscliff and Portsea. Why don’t you trundle down the road to CSIRO at Aspendale and tell John Church where his life long research is wrong based on your little anecdote. I’m sure he’ll give up after your “science” input.

    Did I say say catastrophist – don’t verbal me mate

  12. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    Don’t verbal me neither, I’m a not a denier.

    Whenever you make a good argument and prove a point most of us here gracefully accept and acknowledge it.
    You do make sense at times you know!?

    All I can say about sea levels is that if you have structure constructed 80 odd years ago and according to science, quoted by you, we had a sea level rise of 80 mm, which is close to over 3 inches, AND we cannot detect any sign of it on said structure, than I’m afraid I do believe my lying eyes. Due respect Mr J Church.

    Luke 2cm or less anyone can be accused of not noticing, but please 3 Inches???

    Ps I’m not lurking here all the time, I have other things to to do, I just checked in and saw your post.

  13. Comment from: Debbie

    John Church’s life long research is being used to attack other people’s life long and often generational livelihoods.
    Is John Church doing that personally?
    Probably not.
    Why are you trying to make this about personalities?
    Who is verballing whom?
    It isn’t about personalities.
    That tactic is purely political and has absolutely sweet FA to do with genuine science or anything to do with using science to help us understand the world around us.
    The science is being used inappropriately. It has no more chance of delivering the political expectations than those who are being attacked and used as political footballs.
    In fact the scientists are being used as political footballs as well.
    Nobody has said that science is completely wrong.
    However, we have a political agenda claiming the opposite do we not?
    That is what is completely wrong.

  14. Comment from: Luke

    Debbie –

    The evidence offered was “I talked to locals and they say the water at the highest tide usedto run over the top, now it doesn’t happen unless there is a strong southerly wind is accompanying the tide.”

    Well isn’t that scientific. So we’re being offered a SECOND hand anecdote as THE evidence when you have the research hub on such complex matters down the road. Next minute you’ll be making up half arsed cause-effect-correlation stories to make a science point.

    JW peeked – LOL !

  15. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    You may huff and puff all you like, but I’d still prefer hard, observed evidence to modeling.
    As I said, the pier did not rise out of the ground, my parents house is still as far from the shoreline as it ever was.
    Anecdotal schmanecdotal, if an object used on occasion to be submerged at times but not any more, then that is good enough for me.

    I mentioned this before, get out from your office and smell the air, look at the sea, listen to the boyds, they are still here you know?
    Maybe then you will get a new perspective on things.
    On the other hand, have it your way, who cares?

  16. Comment from: Luke

    I’m not huffing and puffing and who is talking about modelling? I’m not rebutting with “modelling”. You have presented a second hand anecdote for a single location.

    There’s decadal variation from PDO/IPO – also El Nino/La Nina. Not all areas around the globe are showing rise uniformly. Port Phillip Bay is a shallow waterway where the outlet is dredged for shipping which affects tides and residence time. All makes for a very complex story. Just the dredging of the ocean passage is enough in itself.

    So if you think an anecdote about a datum point is a global analysis – don’t do science.
    And irrelevant as it is I was in the bush most of today? so what?

    Of course with all the erosion at Portsea – maybe it’s sea level rise ….. ooooo….

  17. Comment from: koalabear


    You will have to watch out for our paper. It will be published soon. The bears tested 19 locations in Queensland for monthly rainfall forecasts and had lower RMSE at 18 compared to POAMA forecasts. The bears used a laptop and neural network software costing under $1000. The BoM has supercomputers costing tens of millions and armies of people in there. The bears win.

    Just about says it all.

    Time for a big downsizing of the government. We could fire 75% of the parasites starting with the Department of Climate Change – an instant saving of $100 million a year. The Queensland Climate Change Office also goes – what an enormous waste of money!

  18. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    OK Luke I get it.

    I don’t see any sea level rising, SD maybe a thousand miles from here can’t see any, some of the Pacific islands actually growing in size, but generally speaking the seas have risen.
    Fair enough.

    We had longer and more severe droughts and bigger more devastating floods, more frequent and damaging tropical storms and cyclones in the past, but just we wait you say, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

    The last two summers were quite cool and pleasant as far as I’m concerned, but according to the spokesman from the BOM, I heard him a couple of weeks ago, these two summers were still above average.
    There must have been some really cold summers in the past if we can still mange to get the average up. Either that or the poor statistics get a nasty workout lately.

    And I’m not even saying, that the sea levels never changed, we have proof that they were much higher and much lower in the past, we know the temperature and rainfall was different in the past.

    I’m not arguing any of that Luke. What I’m about is the constant haranguing and harassing us about our guilt of causing it all with our wicked CO2.

    You make sense sometimes but most of the time you are singing from your CC hymn book.
    It does get annoying.

  19. Comment from: Luke

    Lower RMSE from a hyper-charged over-tuned fancy forced fit. If that’s the size of it we’ll just laugh.

    Where’s the independent validation stats and cross validation stats. Without which – not worth a bumper. Yet another wannabe effort – ho hum.

    Seriously if you haven’t done any skill testing it’s not even worth reading.

    POAMA’s not your mark. If that’s all you’ve compared it to another giggle.

    They’re not getting rid of the Dept of Climate Change – doesn’t exist.

  20. Comment from: Luke

    JW so I guess looking out the window beats the tide gauge record from Fremantle and Fort Denison.

  21. Comment from: Robert

    The Dept of Climate Change does not exist.

    Nor is there a DEPT of anything, if full names are to be required.

    We have a Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. (Mustn’t neglect the lie of CAGW and forget the lie of Renewables.)

    To advance any gigantic lie, you need statistics and factoids. Lately, something else called a model has been popular. Models make the distortion of statistics and factoids effortless.

    A real advance!

  22. Comment from: Luke

    Robert – it doesn’t exist – prove it.

  23. Comment from: Robert

    Well, Luke, you’ve got me. Maybe something wonderful has happened overnight and it doesn’t exist. Maybe there’s a trick here, and I’m missing it. But here goes:

    Top left, next to that emu.

    Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Combet’s the minister.

    Not a meaningless, manipulative factoid, like “The Arctic is melting” or “The planet is warming” or “Sea levels are rising”. Just a fact.

    What am I missing? What’s the trick here? I’m genuinely intrigued.

  24. Comment from: Luke

    Robert – look don’t bluff me with your internet trickery – on here bigoted redneck opinions are much more important than evidence or science. Look a bloke down the pub said it was all bullshit and didn’t exist. So do you want to believe the internet or the bloke down the pub. it doesn’t exist.

    Who do you know works there? The only thing that exists is GetUp and they employ actors.

    So what happens Robert is you to make stuff up about people you don’t know. Right ! That’s how stupid sceptic blogs work.

    Then you do a bit of verballing. A gish gallop gatling gun is always handy. Pick on a few celebs. Bit of cherry picking. Ignore the general and pick an obscure exception. The ol’ commo world govt one is good if you run out of ideas too.

  25. Comment from: Robert

    Okay. so it’s satire! I’m being satirised as a flat earther and commie hater. (Half-right.)

    Yet I can’t help feeling that the original response to koalabear was some sort of major blunder, which is now to be covered up with much indirection and evasion.

    What about it Luke? Was your original remark a blunder, or are you pretending it was some kind of barely comprehensible, heavily disguised satire directed at koalabear?

    “They’re not getting rid of the Dept of Climate Change – doesn’t exist.”

    Are warmies always this wriggly? Is it always the dog that ate your homework?

  26. Comment from: Luke

    I’m not a warmist. Don’t verbal me.

  27. Comment from: Debbie

    So what’s the definition of a warmist?
    Actually this is apparently a ‘sceptic’ blog.
    So a definition of that would be appreciated too.
    That way I could figure out these ‘ verbal me/you’ accusations :-)

  28. Comment from: Luke Debs a binary test for sceptics – ROFL

  29. Comment from: hunter

    Are believers dim enough to actually think the Earth has changed within our control?

  30. Comment from: Luke

    Well yes dopey draws – agriculture changes vast areas of albedo, surface roughness and evaporation – like a duh !

    Of course humans can change climate. Check the clouds – a typical formation –

    Where – here – west of the fence is wheat for miles and miles

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All