More Skepticism in the Mainstream Media: Case of the Warm and Fuzzy
Posted by jennifer, August 23rd, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
I can’t say that I approve of the title that they gave my piece in The Weekend Australian: Case of the Warm and Fuzzy (pdf 800kbs).
But I am so pleased that they published the six graphs: all is forgiven. Furthermore, in this one piece I have been provided an opportunity to discuss the facts as they pertain not only to global temperatures, but also to rainfall along the east coast of Australia and salinity in the Murray River.
I am reminded of the George Orwell quote: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Much thanks to The Australian.
I am still looking for the url at the newspaper’s website but in the meantime readers who live in Australia should just go out and buy two copies of The Weekend Australian and turn to page 25.
graphs uploaded August 28, 2008
Text now available online at The Australian without charts here (August 25, 2008).
Letters in response can be found here (August 25, 2008).
———-
Case of the warm and fuzzy
by Jennifer Marohasy
Page 25, The Weekend Australian. August 23-24, 2008
Bernard J
I am not at in agreement or disgreement with Mashey as I have not read his opinion, so your final sentence is somewhat presumptious.
The scientific method is the empirical method – observation, framing of an hypothesis, then testing it. It cannot be expressed any simpler than this. I suppose that when one is not able to do an experiment to test an hypothesis, such as in the fields of astronomy, archaelogy and geology, then the lure of the Deductive Method becomes irresistable.
Of course there is then what might be termned Whig Science, in which consensus and proof is determined by reasoned argument among a group of experts. That is not science but scientitism.
I am sure that many pseudoscientists are very aware of how they conduct their efforts.
Graemebird: “Ok Ben, now tell us just what Al Gore and Flannery know about climate science”
Well, compared to real climate scientists, I suspect they know very little. They have never published in peer-reviewed journals, and therefore have no real credibility. Actually, I wish Al Gore had never become involved in the debate because it has somehow cast what is a scientific issue as a political one. Unfortunately it seems many people are unable to separate the two.
For those of you who are confused about the matter of ’scientific consensus’ among the experts, I suggest you read this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Do you climate-change denialists believe there is systematic bias in all scientific disciplines? Are there people out there who dismiss the findings in journals of Nuclear Physics, Genetics, Immunology, Organic Chemistry etc… as ‘not following the scientific method’?
Or is atmospheric science the only one that is full of greedy, immoral lefties?
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ’scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
“they have never published in peer-reviewed journals…”
Totally idiotic epistemology. You fail. Go to the back of the class and where the dunce cap. Gore has made a million dollars a hundred times from this science fraud. Flannery is a public speaking whore. They are useless because they are stupid whores. But this publishing in peer reviewed journals is just fieldwork and doesn’t lead to any conceptual understanding of anything. Its chores. Nuts and bolts work. And thats if its done right. Field workers are not field Marshalls. And no field worker is a specialist in all the relevant areas.
” I’m into lower life forms”.
We’re relieved, no progeny then.
Ben; “Do you climate-change denialists believe there is systematic bias in all scientific disciplines? ”
Sorry guy but $50 Billion in research grants can buy a lot of friends and the news media loves alarmist news releases, believe it or not they are private enterprise busineses which have an eye to the bottom line. Lets not be too naive. Yes there is a systematic bias. I have read hundreds of peer reviewed technical papers which never get a hint of recognition in the news media but one piece of alarmist propaganda gets sent around the world by AP and Reuters I have responded to these news wires many times directly with proof of their blatent disregard for the truth but there is never a retraction. The problem is that the politicians believe the news wires are reflecting the will of the poeple which the recent poll in the UK proved totally wrong but now that they are committed they cannot retreat thats the problem, scientists can reverse their opinions based on new evidence which so many have but politicians can not, they are a much lower form of life.
“Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round.”
Let me get this straight, you don’t want to philosophise on the nature and practice of science but want us to go pick a fight with a couple of Computer Scientists over their views on the matter?
As a computer engineer I have the utmost respect for this Mashey’s accomplishments, having worked on SGI and MIPS units for OEMs back in the ’90s.
I have lived and worked and partied with such brilliant individuals. They see solutions instantly that I cannot with great effort. They are also the very last people I’d look to for erudition on the philosophy of science.
Sorry, but their sites are lame in the extreme.
Have you heard of Hume or Wittgenstein or Kuhn? Oh, Deltoid has discussed and dismissed them? Indeed.
Right, I just had a bit of a look at Deltoid.
My god! What a snide little collective of self-satisfied, back-slapping, group-thinking twerps.
Unlike the rightist back-slapping rabble that inhabit this hallowed blog. LOLZ.
And gee Gazza if you’re computer engineer and not a top flight scientist excuse us if we also discount your own philosophical opinions.
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ’scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
Yeah, Bernard. You said that already.
I also read a few of your contributions over at Deltoid, BTW.
Is it science that you teach? Or bias and ridicule?
Regarding my Mashey comment – it was made with tongue firmly in cheek. I haven’t read Mashey, but I will have a read of what he has to say.
Graeme,
Regarding your criticism of Popper, based on his rejection of induction, I can see that point of view. However, I also see the attraction in Popper’s arguments for falsification. In truth, in order for me to cogently argue with you on the subject, I’d need to put much more thought into where I stand on the induction vs. falsification dichotomy. I will think on it, but don’t hold your breath on my response! On those kinds of questions, I ponder long and not always diligently.
I presume that you’ll recognize that, whether you agree with Popper’s conclusions or not, he brought focus to this and a number of other issues, which has been useful.
I’d be interested to know how you would distinguish, say, psychoanalysis from true science, if falsifiability is not the test?
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ’scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
Bernard,
What a flogger you are! I’ve now answered you three times, with three different and considered responses (albeit responses with which you obviously disagree).
….and, you choose to simply copy and paste the same response. Intonation, repetition – like some kind of religious ceremony.
If you’re a father, I’m glad I’m not your son. You say you are a teacher; I’m glad I’m not your student.
Gack! I only clicked ‘post’ once, but somehow one of my messages seems to be circulating in the ether!
I have another user on my computer, so if they somehow refreshed my open tabs and resent that message I extend my apologies to all here, whether I stand on the same side of the fence or not!
Bernard,
OK, fair enough. If you didn’t do it, it’s far more likely to have been a doppelganger.
TheWord.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond, and I really am sorry that my post was repeated for whatever reason. It was not intentional, and the fact that it is duplicated verbatim should emphasise that.
I don’t know that I can blame the other user here, because we have both been out all day, but for whatever gremlin caused the repetion, if it came from my side of the proceedings I do apologise.
And Graeme, whatever your interpretation or mine is on the science behind the interview (and there are several things about it that I disagree with) my point is that there are many military sources that take the field very seriously. As do many in the insurance industry. If you reread my previous post you will see my intention was to make this point.
If there is a conspiracy of left-wing ideology that permeates the world’s orthodox science, why does the same thinking extend to these two very disparate and stereotypically conservative bodies?
Why do so many governments, professional scientific bodies, military strategists, and business interests all accept the science, when many of them would traditionally have resisted (and did resist) the mere idea of climate change on ideological grounds?
Bernard,
OK, that’s good – don’t protest too much.
I’ve just confirmed that our ‘phone was plugged in for most of the afternoon, and not the computer, so it seems that the repetition came from the ISP, or further. Weird.
Anyway, if there are any further bizarre events in this vein chill out everyone – whilst I might want to stir some thought here, I wouldn’t do it with silliness like clicking ‘post’ half a dozen times.
“And gee Gazza if you’re computer engineer and not a top flight scientist excuse us if we also discount your own philosophical opinions.”
Luke, mi amigo, in economics it’s called ‘Comparative Advantage’.
My first degree was in Bio, focussing on Evolution.
On my first return, for a CompSci/Math degree, a good buddy pursuing the CompSci, had a PhD. in Botany, and had recently completed a 6 month study of lichens, in Brooks Range Alaska; likely the umteenth such, for which he earned, to the immense gratitude of his young family, $6000, U.S.
The IBM PC was nascent and computers since have done alright by me.
Even though I’m a bit of a ‘tard. I feel at home here, Ok?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/crucial-to-keep-open-mind-in-a-climate-of-change/1255345.aspx
“A former head of CSIRO’s division of space science, Dr Ken McCracken was awarded the Australia Prize the precursor of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize in 1995. Now in his 80s, officially retired and raising cattle in the ACT hinterland, he is still very active in his research field of solar physics.
McCracken is adamantly not a climate change sceptic, agreeing that rising fossil-fuel emissions will be a long-term cause of rising global temperatures.
But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ‘’soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.”
So if the sun is at its most active for 1000 years ( ie since MWP) it is surely likely that temperatures are also at highs?
The Canberra times is very careful to point out that this scientist is a believer.
It also goes onto stress how important it is to let us know that temps could go down……and they seriously expect us not to be sceptical…
Toby.
The lack of correlation between solar output and temperature as been repeatedly demonstrated in the last several years.
Try Google; and especially Google Scholar.
Start here Graeme Bird.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
And seriously, try Google Scholar – there are yet other, recent studies that show that solar activity over the last several decades has not caused most of the observed temperature trend.
No lying involved unless, of course, we include your contribution.
“The lack of correlation between solar output and temperature as been repeatedly demonstrated in the last several years.”
Uh, Toby, what Bernie meant to say was:
Measurements by satellite of solar TSI since 1979 show a mere 0.1% variance between secular Schwabe cycle max and min. .
Sami Solanki of Max Planck, famously noted that this variance was insufficient to account for climate warming during this period. Sami also said the sun’s output was at a 10,000 year high in a different paper. Sami is prolific, publishing as a co-author about every other week.
I doubt he proofs these papers, but maybe I don’t understand academia.
Google Scholar? May I ask, at what level do we teach?
Bernie,
Please direct people with a less careless manner and precision of expression.
KuhnKat, on an adjoining thread, gives a link to SORCE data, the latest satellite launched to study solar TSI. He points out that while the variance at 1AU is small, the variance here at earth is 6% per year, a rather larger number.
Now we also know that TSI does not account for all the solar energy received, e.g., solar wind and the ionized electrons, protons and atomic nuclei input teraWatts at the poles near solar minimum on each earth directed CME.
Another possible solar effect, again at solar minimum, is to increase cloudiness and decrease insolation. The earth’s albedo has been increasing throughout the new millenium and the reduction in TSI reaching the ground has already decreased more that 10W/m^2, or more than the variance in solar output.
Moreover, these are smoothed vaiues. Engineers damp readings inorder that they converge to an average value rather than flailing about, limit to limit. Just the other day, one satellite was offline (SOHO?) due to ccd saturation, being hit with a rare flare(rare for solar minimum, anyway).
Well, solar flaring has been absent since Feb. 07, whereas it continued daily, uninterrupted all thru the 1996 minimum. On this end at earth, UV, 20% of the solar spectrum in energy, can spike 100%. These spikes are not currently incorporated in the data.
There is more. 40% of the energy received is IR. A mere 1% reaches the surface. The remainder is absorbed in the atmosphere. The variation and consequences I have yet to sort out.
Bernie; Gary is absolutely right the suns influence is so much more than just the variation in radiation. We are only just beginning to understand the presence of a multitude of factors let alone quantify and evaluate them. The correlation is there and it is only the first clue as we have said so many times correlation does not prove causation so much more research has to be done and even 10 years is an eye blink with respect to data collection on this subject. I have been very interested lately in researching the gravitational pull of all the solar system components on each other and how it causes wobbles and eccentricities in all the orbits including the sun. This causes the fluid components on the surface to oscillate, best example being our tides, this could also effect our ocean currents which have a major effect on the climate, El Ninos etc. Perhaps the sun has currents caused by varying gravitational forces which effects its performance. There is so much that we do not know it is totally irrational to take a dogmatic stand. Some may say we are dogmatic but in almost every post by Graeme is asking for evidence this can be seen as the position of a passionate debater but it certainly can not be called dogmatic.
“We are only just beginning to understand the presence of a multitude of factors let alone quantify and evaluate them.”
Good writin’.
Jenifer,
Could you comment on the time axis of trhe “global mean temperature”: chart?
As published it appears to suggest that the period 1910-1925 and 1925 to 1930 are equivalent.
We’d be there with it by now if the alarmists hadn’t sucked out all the oceans. Its just a matter of carrying out good research on a pretty limited number of relationships.
You go to guys who are studying planetary orbits versus solar phenomenon and the blogs are slowed down to a post a month.
Its just disgraceful what these science frauds have done.