Unable and Unwilling to Consider the Evidence: Our ABC
Posted by jennifer, April 26th, 2012 - under Information, News.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change, People
SCIENCE was once about matching theory with reality. According to American physicist and historian Thomas Kuhn this perhaps more than anything else contributed to the phenomenal progress made by scientists over the last 400 years.
But many people appear to have a problem with understanding theory and considering it in the context of reality. Consider Anna Rose and her performance on the documentary ‘I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change’ featured on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) this evening. Ms Rose was flown across Australia and around the world to talk with climate change sceptics but refused to engage constructively on issues of scientific evidence. Yet evidence is central to science and in particular determining whether theory and reality match.
Instead of listening to what Richard Linzen had to say about feedback mechanism and global climate she said he was not credible because of his views on passive smoking. When it came to Marc Morano, another person introduced to her as sceptical of anthropogenic global warming, Anna Rose point blank refused to talk with him because she said he was a liar. Clearly Mr Morano is influential, here was an opportunity for Anna Rose to apparently show him up as a liar, and she would not engage.
Nick Minchin, who travelled with Ms Rose and who had been specifically tasked with attempting to change Anna Rose’s mind, also tried with the evidence, but he didn’t see able to engage her either.
Jo Nova, David Evans, Richard Lindzen and Marc Morano all provided data that would suggest the theory as promoted by Anna Rose does not accord with reality, but she would not engage.
I noted she suggested that there was something wrong with the sea temperature chart provided by Mr Evans, so why didn’t she provide an explanation and show us what the situation really is with respect to sea temperature?
Instead Ms Rose suggested that all credible scientists say we have a problem, that increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are going to result in the destruction of our economy and the Great Barrier Reef, and we must believe them. Does she realize she is just appealing to authority and not engaging with the evidence?
It would have been easy enough for the documentary makers to nail a couple of issue of evidence. For example, what is the real story with global sea temperatures? But instead, by the end of the documentary it appeared they were keen to move from the science to issue of renewable energy and so was Anna Rose.
Tony Jones suggested, when he opened the Q&A session that immediately followed the documentary on our ABC, that he wanted to focus on renewable energy issues and that the science was no longer a central issue, but every time a sceptic began with some scientific facts, Mr Jones called on “his scientist” Matthew England who was ‘wired-up’ in the audience to put a particular perspective with respect to the science; the ABC perspective.
And according to Jo Nova:
“We did 4 hours of footage at our house, and they showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Rose’s questions. I repeated my favourite lines about 28 million weather balloons, 3000 ocean buoys off by heart at least 4 times [which show no global warming and therefore a mismatch between reality and theory]. Obviously everything I said was too ‘dangerous’. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not ‘interesting’ to the Australian public. So all in all, pretty much as we expected. They trimmed it down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do)…”
Our ABC has no concept of evidence, or the importance of attempting to match theory with reality, as part of assessing the reliability of a scientific theory.
And it is disappointing that our ABC couldn’t bring itself to get even one sceptical scientist into the Q&A audience to provide some support for Nick Minchin – though he did well enough on his own.
Robert: Since I often list my key words in a Google search I decided not to bother this time as the URL seemed to be half a page long and it was only a specific query of mine that picked the plot from their very public front end. But it is some hours since and I will be up again at 4am tomorrow and then off to outside chores before daylight.
Have a go yourself with “global ocean temp April NOAA” then probe the official info options.
Recall; I wrote exactly 1.5C / 100y (going back from yesterday.
Brisbane today reached a max temp of 19.3c [average max for April 27c] which Channel Nine reported as the lowest max ever recorded for an April day.
I’ve been standing in the rain handing out soggy how-to-vote cards and I now have a dreadful cold. I hope the results make it worthwhile.
Our darling ABC made no mention of the cold record.
Gav, I’m not saying the term isn’t used. I’m saying it shouldn’t be used. Even surface temp measurements in WW2 were variable according to whether Yanks or Poms did them. As for the whole ocean, it’s rather big, and quite deep, with all those trenches and abyssal plains. If anyone can tell me what the global ocean temp was in 1912, I’ll either have them committed or deified. Just some surface and near surface readings will do, when someone has a point they’d like to make. If the 1912 data is a bit light-on, I’ll still catch the drift. (I’m guessing there’s been warming overall? Good. I’m not wanting any of that pre-1850 chill any time soon.)
I’m pleased you’ll be up at 4am for chores. I have some lantana encroaching on the front verandah which I’ve been planning to chop for the last year. Maybe I should attend to it. Or think harder about attending to it.
SD
According to BOM’s records, 16.3C is the lowest max temp for Brisbane in April. However, I totally agree with you that the ABC give us all the hot periods but rarely the cold ones.
Thanks Ian, yes I should have checked. 26/4/83, 16.3c
Anna observes a minute of silence near the end of the Morano segment..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGYW7IEIirk
Like all alarmists, Anna claims honesty and high moral ground but doesn’t want to deal in truth and facts.
When your mind is as closed as that, nothing can change it.
There’s a large percentage of watermelons like Anna and the struggle to debrief them is not going to be easy.
Because the CC debate has a political hue the warmists put their faith in ‘the science’, as postulated by ‘scientists’, there is little we can do to counter this faith even with clear scientific evidence to the contrary.
The watermelons should have egg on their face, but they don’t understand the science and hope by ignoring reality its bound to go away.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/david-evans-explains-the-skeptics-case-youtube/
The reason for the one minutes silence, and her reluctance to say anything, might have something to do with this material, that wasnt shown at the ABC show ..nor has the media anywhere had the balls or integrity, to reveal and debate.
Jo Nova and David Evans were filmed by the very same ABC crew, but none of it was used ..and it is obvious why not. They wouldnt have an program if it was aired, It woud be an own goal that would make them look like dills.
Jo Nova and David Evans deserve to be recognised and compensated for their sterling work at their own expense, in revealing the extent of the scam.
It is also worth noting that not one dollar from the Tax Payer Provided ARC Science Slush Fund, was involved in the Nova /Evans work. The ARC money has already been wasted on producing the now discredited alarmist cause, and the subsequent campaign of mispresentation.
But it easy to see why Combert and the climatariat have to fight tooth and nail to protect the cause
They are all in too deep to back out now.
Only an election is going to clean this mess up and stop the country wasting yet more money on what is basically a fraud.
Easily sucked in Truth Machine – pretty well all of Evans video is bullshit. And has been refuted. Are you that easily amused. Honestly you lot love having your chain pulled. Choo choo !
“pretty well all of Evans video is bullshit.”
Yeah, well that was obviously the ABC’s and Anna’s line too.
Please tell us, Truthful Luke, one thing Evans said that was wrong.
Projections vs satellite temps – wrong
ERBE – wrong
Ocean heat – wrong
Heat islands issue – wrong
Now if you don’t know all these you’re pretty stupid / gullible /or don’t want to know.
So which of Evans claims are wrong and why/?
In any case why dont you take up your claims with Evans himself on the Jonova blog and under your real name.
So here you go luvvy boy:
These are Evans claims…. enlighten us
“1. air temperature rise overestimated in models since turn of the century. (lower infact than scenario in which we achieve drastic CO2 cuts.
2. Sea level rise massively overestimated.
3. Sea level temperature rise overestimated.
4. Hot spot non existent. (disproves water vapor feedback assumption that amplifies CO2 warming)
5. Outgoing radiation increases with a hotter surface temperatures (disproved models assumptions)”
What… only obfuscation and evasion….thought that would be the answer.
Evans is on pretty safe grounds
You clown
(1) incorrect data set comparison with satellite data – how skanky – models don’t predict what UAH sees – the whole comparo is rot
(2) sea level rise – well astro-boy should get published – eh ain’t – fancy wanking about some wiggle from a satellite on the blink
(3) heat content – latest 2012 data says it’s rising
(4) radiation story – slaughtered by RC – more Lindzen dross
(5) global hydrological cycle – amplified as latest research shows
You’re not seriously going to believe these denialist prawns are you? But you’d be too stupid to actually track any of this down and prefer to led around the ring by the nose. You’re just lazy to be do the most minimal checking.
The test is to be published. Evans won’t even though he has sixty-six degrees. Although the system is biased as we all know. So when the manuscript is laughed out of any decent journal – fess up and publish the review comments. We could do with a laugh. All won’t happen. So peez orf !
OK Luke you sling off at Evans. Now he has put it all on the web (several times) so why not do the decent thing and take him apart with details – must be a cinch for one so knowledgeable as you to totally demolish this climate science pretender,
Go to it Luke – or for forever SHUT UP!
My sentiments exactly olgrumblebum
In his haste to peddle his usual and predictable bluster he has overlooked the simple fact that Evans was only saying that the measures have been grossly over estimated and/or are just statements of fact ie the hot spot doesnt exist.
Evans is accepting many of the mainstream points of the GW science as is it known..it is the issue of feed backs that is the main contestable point, (followed by the mis use of data), and on that the evidence is pretty clear.The alarmists are wrong.Feed back is negative
Interestingly he accepts that the system is biased, but conveniently ignores the consequences of that, in defending the party line.. cognitive dissonance anyone
Skeptical science and real climate have already done it grumblebum. Pity you guys can’t read eh? Deniers just keep on parroting. Surely it’s the volcanoes?
For skeptics who can’t keep up, my post re an observed 1.5 C sst rise April to April over 100y also relates to the Copenhagen discussion for a target 2 C max rise. Btw I say its too much as polar ice sensitivity is well under that.
Google – “temperature rise 1.5 c april 2012″.
Apart from the latest nonsense on H Schtick, we easily find evidence for this issue in April letters to Nature. Ignore the wind farm thingy too as it fizzes according to the latest from Monash Uni (Sancho Panza)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1499.html
“Equatorial refuge amid tropical warming”
“135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1461.html
Oooo, Oooo, the missing heat is in the ocean!
There’s nothing you can’t extrapolate from dodgy data with a dodgy GCM.
Only the foolishly deluded would believe that the oceans would heat without the atmosphere heating.
Just think about it. It’s the oceans, more than our atmosphere, that provide us with the stable climate we have. They and the atmosphere reached a warm peak 4,000 y ago and have been slightly cooling since.
We can only guess what caused this but it wasn’t due to ACO2.
Bob Tisdale has crunched the numbers and found that there has been little warming in the oceans over the last 30 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/29/tisdale-on-the-17-year-itch-yes-there-is-a-santer-clause/#more-62285
In the last 17 years there has been no warming in the combined Indian and Pacific oceans and that’s about 75% of total.
The models so loved by the religious Gav and Luke have been hopeless. Take out ENSO and you’re left with egg all over your dial.
But hey both of you go over and challenge Bob and others right now and we’ll see how you go. But remember jellybacks you’ll have to have facts and not led by the nose BS to challenge Bob and others over there.
Tisdale is unpublished irrelevance – shown to be wrong. Tell us when he’s published. Until then – ho hum.
Well go over and show him where he’s wrong sir jellyback. Should be so easy for you and they’ll definitely accept your post and Bob WILL reply to your argument.
Bazza too has cruched the numbers, highly significant warming in the I and P oceans over the last 15 years. This game is a bit like Alices restuarant – you can get anything you want. I am going out to play – as my mother said – never argue with a mug who is unpublished.
Luke, d’ya think it’s getting a bit chilly for the whales already?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-30/early-whale-migration-baffles-experts/3979666
How come “our” ABC hasn’t claimed it’s all due to AGW?
Yes Bazza – who can be bothered correcting Tisdale’s maths. Indeed the latest 2012 publications says “Warming is surface intensified in all basins. In the 0-100m layer the Pacific exhibits the largest total increase. Below the 100 m layer the Atlantic exhibits the largest increase of all ocean basins at all layers down to 2000 m depth”
Ho hum for Bob – such golden oldies as http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tisdale-fumbles-pielke-cheers/
and http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
Precisiely Bazza,
Highly astute of you.
You can get anything you want…as the ever increasing numbers of statistical graphs, models etc has proved.
The real issue however is:
What do you want?
You aren’t suffering from that WYSIATI syndrome Bazza are you?.(along with all the rest of us ill informed mere mortals)
I’m still rather attached to Starck’s comment about this whole ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ debate….
It looks more like an academic pissing contest than anything else
I recommend that people read Josephine Kelly’s piece in the Australian last Friday entitled:
“The Strange Idea Behind Ecological Law”
It begins thus:
THE precautionary principle is the most powerful weapon environmentalists have. It has revolutionised international and Australian ecological science and law.
It has driven the global movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The precautionary principle also has driven investment of incalculable public and private funds in ecological research, particularly on the link of greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.
The precautionary principle and other principles underpinning the notion of sustainable development have generated new disciplines in environmental science and engineering.
The principle is not a scientific or economic tool, but was developed to assist governments and peoples with environmental risk analysis….
I found it an interesting and illuminating perspective on this debate.
Luke Bob has answered all of Tamino’s nonsense when he’s allowed to repond on the site.
At the moment Mosher has had a go at Bob about regional problems per modeling, but Bob has shown him where the Ipcc claims that models perform well at regional levels.
But as he says to Mosher 75% of the oceans is a monster region, what more does he want.
Here’s the tip if you /they want to refute Bob you just have to check his numbers and graphs and find a fault (s) and point them out.
The figures and numbers he uses are publicly available from the top institutes, so they should be quickly able to refute him. But I bet they don’t, all they have is BS.
Neville – publish or perish.
So you can’t find any fault with Bob’s numbers and graphs, should be so easy for such a know all.
Can’t be bothered wasting time on unpublished amateurs. You see it’s the old gish gallop – takes too much time to find they’ve made fundamental errors in a slew of accusations.
In any case new papers have now simply overrun his position. Why look at an out of date position?
Gish gallop = don’t confuse me with facts Neville.
Besides, our Lukie has metaphorically dipped his toe in all those oceans and ya can’t fool him.
But I would like his opinion on why the whales are leaving the Antarctic.
Maybe the Japanese are still shooting them down there?
G’day Spangled, for a brilliant article on the so-called missing heat BS, go to the following;
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
it puts it all into perspective.
Cheers.
Thanks Derek. Fascinating stuff. Hope Luke and Gav read it.
Here’s a bit of supreme, peer reviewed irony. 10 times the current warming rate just from on-shore windfarms. Maybe the off-shore windfarms will warm the oceans too:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html
Luke says (April 30th, 2012 at 11:12 am): “Tisdale is unpublished irrelevance – shown to be wrong. Tell us when he’s published. Until then – ho hum.”
Still using the tired old hasn’t-published-a-peer-reviewed-paper argument, Luke? Everyone who reads the thread here at Jennifer’s understands what that means. It means YOU either:
1) checked the results and found them to be correct, or
2) are incapable of disputing my post.
Luke says (April 30th, 2012 at 11:12 am): Ho hum for Bob – such golden oldies as http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tisdale-fumbles-pielke-cheers/
and http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/”
Again, Luke, everyone who reads this thread can also read right through that comment, too. They know it would have taken you little time (2 minutes max) to download the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data, for the coordinates of 90S-90N, 20E-70W, for the period of 1995 to present, to confirm or contradict my results. But if you didn’t do that, assuming you’re able to do it, you wasted your time searching Tamino’s website. And you probably spent more time doing that than downloading the data. The readers here understand that Tamino’s attempts to critique my posts are nonsense. Did you read my replies to them? Here’s a link to the rebuttal to your first link, in which Tamino overreacts to a disclaimer I put on a couple of graphs:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tamino-misses-the-point-and-attempts-to-distract-his-readers/
And here’s a link to my comments on your second Tamino link:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/on-taminos-post-favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
Those rebuttals to Tamino’s nonsense also ran at WattsUpWithThat. Here are links to those threads too so you can go through the comments. A couple of Tamino’s disciples made known their lack of understanding on the topics at hand:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/shades-of-foster-grant/
And:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/13/technical-paper-training-for-hansens-bulldog/
Luke says (April 30th, 2012 at 5:45 pm): “Can’t be bothered wasting time on unpublished amateurs.”
That seems to be your only tack, Luke. But it only really reflects badly on you. Maybe you actually did download the data and discovered I was right. So maybe you’re just blowing smoke. Or maybe, just maybe, you’re not capable of disproving the key graph in the post that Neville linked, which was this one:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/figure-26.png
It’s a simple graph. It shows that the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 20E-70W) haven’t warmed for the past 17 years. That chunk of the data represents 75% of the surface area of the global oceans. 75%. And it shows a linear trend of 0.004 deg C/Decade. EXCEL’s linear trend analysis does a wonderful job of calculating the trends and throwing those nice staight lines on the graph, don’t ya think?.
Neville found that post so noteworthy he provided a link on this thread. Here’s another one:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/how-you-can-confirm-the-sst-anomalies-for-the-indian-and-pacific-ocean-subset-have-not-warmed-for-17-years/
And after your comments he asked me how he could verify the results. So I wrote a post that illustrates where and how to find the data. That way any or all of the readers here at Jennifer’s blog who know how to create a time-series graph on a spreadsheet can confirm those results. They’ll see how easy and quickly they can verify that the sea surface temperature anomalies of that chunk of the global oceans have not warmed since 1995.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/how-you-can-confirm-the-sst-anomalies-for-the-indian-and-pacific-ocean-subset-have-not-warmed-for-17-years/
And I’ll invite Jennifer to cross post it here. She can cross post both posts if she likes.
Regards
Well gee whiz Luke,
The silence is deafening.
Here is the man whom you have maligned on many occaisions claiming his work is gish gallop, cherry picking, unpublished (therefore amateurish) ,wiggle watching, old hat, shown to be wrong and the list goes on and on and on.
Here is is, offering you the chance to tackle him on this issue.
I’ve waited with interest to see what you had to say about this post and you instead seem to have gone MIA ?
I hope it’s just because you have been away from your computer for over a day?
Oh well Debs – looks like we don’t get to discuss the evidence (on a thread about evidence mind you).
Jeezuz, is Luke still kickin? OK, which one of you drongos donated a liver to keep this nematode going?
It’s time we resurrected the concept of Denial as the only possible explanation for the wilful ignorance on the part of the culture at ABC and Luke, who’s been around long enough for his notochord to have absorbed the facts by osmosis.
That would be psychological Denial, not the Green slur, Denialism, which attempts to connect scientific skepticism of the Warmist orthodoxy with Neo-Nazi Holocaust denial.
Denial is the inability to cognitively process facts sitting right in front of your bloody nose. It’s usually caused by trauma and is the first stage of the Kubler-Ross grief recovery model. But in Luke’s and the ABC’s case it’s more related to classical addiction behaviour, as in alcoholics who are in denial of their disease.
The ABC, as the not-so-secret propaganda arm of the Labor/Green coalition is addicted to the Climate Change trope as their best critique of free market economics. Fear of apocalypse was suppose to frighten us all into surrendering our minds and civils liberties to the “great moral challenge of our age,” which is to concentrate power and wealth in the hand of unelected technocrats and regulators in Canberra and the United Nations.
Epic Fail. So maybe the Kubler Ross model of denial as a reaction to grief is partly an explanation too.
David Evan’s youtube falsification of the AGW hypothesis makes it clear climate science isn’t rocket science. Even a child can follow the basic arguments. Yet the ABC can’t bring itself to understand it, much less, heaven forbid let the public hear it explained.
I challenge Luke make a rational argument as to why David Evans is wrong. Or explain how the Earth’s climate remains stable if water vapour feedback is massively positive on every minor warming event.
Here’s a clue–If the Earth’s climate was dominated by X3 amplification on any warming event, then we wouldn’t be here having this debate.
Or maybe Luke is in denial of that too.