Jennifer Marohasy

I’M often confronted, via my Facebook News Feed, with grotesque images of butchered animals and an expectation that I participate in the emotionally satisfying activity of clicking ‘like’ and thus demonstrating that I’m against animal cruelty and for conservation. I’ve never once seen something in my Facebook News Feed that promotes the sustainable use of wildlife. Yet this is more likely to contribute to the long term survive of species like the Rhinoceros.

The last few years has seen a dramatic rise in the incidence of rhino poaching. Previously secure populations are now being targeted by aggressive poaching operations, backed by international crime syndicates. Part of the problem is that the legal trade has been banned following campaigning by the ignorant self-righteous.

Read more »

• 
• 

With the passing of Britain’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, much will be heard from the conservative side of politics about all the good that she did. But for the sack of truth, something she cared much about [1], let us also consider her role in helping to build the illusion of catastrophic climate change.

Margaret Thatcher was no friend of science, but she was a friend of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that was established in the School of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia in Norwich in 1972.

This is the same institution that Climategate exposed as being up to its neck in scientific fraud.

The establishment of the CRU only just preceded Thatcherism. With Thatcher’s market economics applied to public science none of the scientists at the CRU were ever guaranteed a salary. They had to generate their own income through grants and contracts.

Much of their money did end up coming from government but it had to be earned, they had to show their value to the politician and this is now par for the course [1].

It was following the miner’s strike in the UK and Prime Minister Thatcher’s increasing impatience with Arthur Scargill, then president of the National Union of Mineworkers, that the first tentative links were drawn between coal mining and the possibility of a climate catastrophe.

Various luminaries from that time have told me that Prime Minister Thatcher was keen to reduce Britain’s dependence on coal. She drew the connection between rising carbon dioxide emissions and coal mining before it was fashionable because she thought there was perhaps some scientific justification, and because she was keen to find justification for alternative energy sources, particularly nuclear.

Indeed her government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s. Mrs Thatcher visited the CRU and assembled her entire cabinet to hear a seminar on climate change at which Tom Wigley, then director of CRU, was the star performer.

***

[1] “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.” – on her election as prime minister in 1979

[2] Bob Carter explains in ‘Science is Not Concensus’ how during the 1980s there came a restructuring of the way in which government science operated. Public-good programme funding for the activities of government science agencies shrank, to be replaced by funding for individual projects with limited lifetimes.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/IPA-RMC-03Reviewr.pdf

• 
• 

IT is terribly unfashionable to admit it, but I’ve just never been able to believe that the late 20th Century was particularly warm. This admission despite ‘the hockey stick’ graph that featured so prominently in the United Nation’s third IPCC assessment report, and despite that amazing looking chart in Al Gore’s movie that also showed a recent spike in global temperatures relative to the last many thousand years.

My key problem with the ‘the hockey stick’ has always been that the upward spike representing runaway global warming in the 20th Century was never of the same stuff as the rest of the chart. That is the spike is largely based on the instrumental temperature record i.e. the thermometer record, while the downward trending line that it was grafted on to, is based on proxies, in particular estimates of temperature derived from studies of tree rings.

It has always, for me, been a case of Michael Mann comparing apples and oranges, or to put it another way sticking an apple on the end of a banana.

The Michael Mann and Shaun Marcott Hockey Sticks

Worst the grafting was necessary because the proxy record, i.e. the tree ring record, shows that global temperatures have declined since about 1960.

Of course we know that global temperature haven’t declined since 1960, or thereabout, so there must be something wrong with the proxy record. This is known as “the divergence problem” and it is a problem, because if tree rings are not a good indicator of global temperature after 1960, how can they be a good indicator of global temperature prior to 1960?

Indeed there doesn’t appear to be a reliable method for reconstructing the last 100 or so years based on the standard techniques used to reconstruct the last 2,000, 4,000 and even 11,000 years of global temperature.

So when someone claims the past 10 years have been hotter than the past 11,300 years, as the Australian Broadcasting Commission did recently [1], there is good reason to cringe.

Of course the ABC didn’t make it up. They were reporting on the work of climate scientists recently published in a reputable journal. In particular a paper by Shaun Marcott and colleagues published in Science [2].

Sceptic, mathematician and blogger, Steve McIntyre, broke the original hockey stick into bits to do a thorough analysis, showing that the entire shaft, not just post 1960, was a fancy construct to create the impression of runaway global warming [3], and he’s done the same with this new Marcott fabrication [2].

While some who read this blog may cringe at my use of the word fabrication, it is more than justified because as Dr Marcott now admits in his own words[4]:

“[T]he 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.”

In summary, Dr Marcott created the perception of a spike in temperatures the same way Michael Mann did in that first hockey stick paper that featured so prominently in the third IPCC report, by comparing apples and oranges… or perhaps best described as grafting an apple onto the end of a banana.

***

1. Earth on track to be hottest in human history: study . March 8, 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-08/climate-study/4561164

2. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Marcott et al.. Science, Volume 339, No. 6124, pages 1198-1201.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

Abstract: Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (

3. see http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf and more http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ and the latest http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

4. Response by Marcott et al. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

• 
• 

“On average, global air temperatures were somewhat below the 1998-2006 average, although
with large regional differences…

“The global oceanic heat content has been rather stable since 2003/2004…

The above quotes and charts are from a monthly newsletter with global meteorological information updated to February 2013:

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_February_2013.pdf

Compiled by

Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography, Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway

• 
• 

THE key plank of the national water reform agenda in Australia, the Murray Darling Basin Plan, was presented to the Australian Parliament on 22nd November 2012, and was passed with the support of the Coalition on 29th November. There was a dis-allowance motion, but that expired earlier this week. The same day, Tuesday 19th March 2013, Federal Water Minister Tony Burke was reported crowing that the implementation of the plan is now “irreversible” and that the Basin will now benefit from “an extra 3,200 billion litres of water a year”.[1]

What nonsense. There is no extra water. There will simply be a redistribution of water to the Lower Lakes. That is what the plan is in essence all about, more water for South Australia and in particular a massive artificial lake system that has been in ecological decline since the building of 7.6 kilometres of sea dyke in the 1930s. [2]

The Goolwa Sea Dyke

Public statements from The Minister have made much of the need for the “extra” water to keep the mouth of the Murray open [1]. But this is also a lie.

Along the NSW and Queensland coastlines local governments recognise that river mouths must be constantly dredged to maintain safe passage for boats and to avoid flooding of communities in the lower reaches. This was particularly the case recently following ex-cyclone Oswald with the associated storm surges throwing up sand that blocked river mouths.

But when it comes to the Murray’s mouth, rather than the local Lake Alexandrina council paying for some dredging, the federal Water Minister promises thousands of gigalitres of freshwater from upstream to scour the mouth!

Mr Burke repeatedly justifies the new Basin Plan with the explanation that by taking 2,750 gigalitres of water from food producers and sending it down to the Lower Lakes the Murray’s Mouth will be kept open 90 percent of the time [3].

We surely are a rich country if we can afford to spend between $3.4 and $5.5 billion in freshwater, water that could otherwise be used to grow food, to keep this narrow and shallow channel open to the Southern Ocean.

But the story as repeated by Mr Burke is actually even more bizarre because the sea dykes that the Minister never mentions, block the flow of freshwater to the mouth.

The sea dykes have also limited the potential for scouring of the Murray’s Mouth by the tides of the Southern Ocean.

Indeed back in 1856, South Australia’s Surveyor General George Woodroffe Goyder recognised the potential of the Mundoo channel to scour the Murray’s Mouth. He suggested the natural process of deepening and widening the Murray’s sea mouth be enhanced by cutting through the rock bar across this channel thus further concentrating tidal water inflow and river water outflow. The rock bar is of calcareous sandstone and a relic of sea level rise about 125,000 years ago. Instead over the last 156 years government policy has worked to stop the tide and block the channel.

***

[1] Watershed moment for our mighty River Murray as Murray Darling Basin plan becomes fixed. March 19, 2013. By David Jean and Tim Dornin http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/watershed-moment-for-our-mighty-river-murray-as-murray-darling-basin-plan-becomes-fixed/story-e6frea83-1226600145482

[2] There are five sea dykes, known locally as barrages, and their impact on the lower Murray is explained at the Lakes Need Water website http://www.lakesneedwater.org/the-case-for-an-estuary

[3] Draft Murray Plan: Tony Burke, Radio National, Breakfast, April 12, 2012 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/draft-murray-plan-tony-burke/3945288

For a more detailed overview of the situation read ‘Save the Murray: Restore the Estuary’ available for download here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Murray-Estuary_Sydney-Institute-Paper-2.pdf

• 
• 

FOIA is a recognised shorthand for Freedom of Information Act. Legislation by this name has existed in the USA since 1966, Australia since 1982 and the UK legislation was introduced in 2000. It was climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, conspiring to evade the UK FOIA that probably inspired Climategate, with Mr FOIA, as the “hacker” calls himself, releasing over 220,000 documents and emails beginning in November 2009. In a recent email he explained: “The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.”

By providing public access to emails and documents from leading climate scientists, Mr FOIA exposed how tricks, adjustments, and corrections, were routinely applied to climate data to support the propaganda of the largely government-funded global warming industry.

I recently scrutinized documents from a successful FOI request by John Abbot to the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, DCCEE. As far as I can make out from the documents the entire Australian Climate Change Science Program can be likened to what Mr FOIA describes as “a massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor” for which the climate scientists are generously remunerated by the Australian taxpayer. Let me explain in more detail:

Read more »

• 
• 

MODERN history suggests that democracy aligns, and progresses, with the expansion of civil liberties, including access by ordinary citizens to government information. But the new media reform bills tabled in [Australian] federal Parliament last week appear unashamedly about the introduction of an additional layer of bureaucracy unaccountable to the public or the judiciary.

To address the potential problem of a concentration of media control, the government appears determined to concentrate the power of oversight into the hands of a single political appointee – the public interest media advocate (PIMA) – entrusted to be wise enough to act in the public interest.

The PIMA will administer public interest tests in the merger or takeovers of media interests. But unlike other areas of government where there is a public interest test, such as the application of freedom of information laws, the decisions of the PIMA will not be subject to judicial review or appeal through the courts.

It may even be unique in this respect.

Under the constitution, the doctrine of the separation of powers divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.

The legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws.

This doctrine is often assumed to be one of the cornerstones of fair government. It enables an entity separate from the executive to review a government decision such as that resulting from the implementation of a public interest test.

But this is possible only if the specific legislation embodying a public interest test has incorporated this safeguard for an appeal through the courts.

This is the case, for example under freedom of information legislation, FOI. In contrast, under the proposed media reform legislation, review of decisions will not be available.

The explanatory memorandum says these processes would be costly and time consuming to review, but we consider such an argument entirely unpersuasive.

The new public interest test will be considered in addition to the existing Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s substantial lessening of competition test, the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s existing media diversity tests and where necessary, the Foreign Investment Review Board’s national interest test.

The idea of applying a public interest test to determine the acceptability of any proposed further concentrations in media control or ownership may be appealing to some who may view this as an extra safeguard.

However, let’s consider how well a public interest test may operate in practice with reference to FOI.

Under FOI, a public interest test is applied, in some circumstances, by government agencies and departments to determine public access rights to documents.

This test requires the government department to state relevant factors, both for and against disclosure.

This should be, in theory, followed by a balancing of these factors, each objectively examined and given an appropriate weighting, leading to an impartial decision on whether the public interest is better served by disclosure or by non-disclosure.

When we applied in 2010 to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) for disclosure of documents relating to expenditure on certain science programs it administered, our request was initially refused.

Following a protracted appeal process through the Information Commissioner that included scrutiny of the manner of application of the public interest test, the original decision was reversed and the documents eventually were fully disclosed.

Had this review failed, it would have been possible for us to appeal against the decision through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court and the High Court.

No such appeal will be possible when the PIMA hands down his or her decisions.

****

This opinion article by John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy was first published in the Australian Financial Review on Monday 18th March, 2013. http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/media_rules_prohibit_dissent_YY0bcVGgqdzXvNgEXC8gLO

• 
• 

SOMEONE hacked into the Climatic Research Unit, CRU, at the University of East Anglia and published thousands of confidential emails between leading climate scientists online in November 2009 [1]. Many of the emails showed that leading proponents of anthropogenic global warming were having great difficulty justifying their own propaganda. One of my favourite emails is from Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, to the infamous Michael Mann complaining that there has been no global warming:

“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)…

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

While the hack was widely condemned by mainstream climate scientists and the hacker would likely go to jail for a long time - if only he could be found. For me, the stolen emails represented a first opportunity to see the extraordinary deceit and corruption within the mainstream climate science community; the very people running the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, at the United Nations.

Indeed I have always held the hacker in high esteem. He is one of my heroes.   Along with Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), he is a great champion of science.

Anyway, yesterday the hacker provided several high profile bloggers, including Anthony Watts, with password access to some 220,000 additional emails!

WUWT will be publishing some of the new material over the next few days and probably also weeks and months [2].

In a covering email [3] the hacker explained he had done this because he was keen to off-load the remaining material and was not in a position to sort through the material and cull the sensitive and potentially socially damaging material:

“I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.”

I have often wondered who the hacker was, and what motivated him. In this latest email he provides significant insights. In particular, like many readers of this blog, he is clearly concerned about the increasing misallocation of resources by government in the name of anthropogenic global warming.

He is acutely aware that the opportunity for any one individual in a community to be fed, clothed and educated depends to a large extent on the collective wealth and wellbeing of that society. Towards this end, the covering email is also a plea for the better allocation of the “assets” at our collective disposal.

Mr FOIA, as he calls himself, wrote:

“Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Clearly Mr FOIA also places a premium on the truth, writing:

“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”

Thank you Mr FOIA.

******

[1] All the emails, documents and computer code, from the original release in November 2009, can be downloaded from Wikileaks at 

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009

******

[2] I’m guessing that What’s Up With That will be a best place to find new emails as they are released. This morning the following was posted…

Read more »

• 
• 

IN January 2013, from the comfort of their lounge rooms, many Australians watched the forests of the Pilliga burn. The word Pilliga wasn’t mentioned in the sensational reportage as such. The stories were primarily about the devastation and drama of Australian bushfires. Mention was made of the town of Coonabarabran and of the Warrumbungles National Park.

The extent of the bushfire that ravaged the region – that also includes Baradine, Coolah and Dunedo – was in part a consequence of the creation of large areas of national park by a government that promised the creation of the National Parks would ensure the permanent conservation of the forests. There was no mention of this false promise in any of the television reportage.

Yet it is such recent history. Indeed in May 2005 then Premier of NSW, Bob Carr, banned logging in many of the Pilliga forests converting them to National Park and claiming this would ensure their “permanent conservation”.

Bob Carr said that these forests were iconic, the inference was that they were natural, and it was clearly stated that their conversion to National Park would ensure conservation. In reality most of the Pilliga forests are less than 160-years-old and were the creation of a timber industry.

When European explorers first saw this country in the 1820s they described much of the region as grassland and open woodlands. Pastoral leases followed and by the early 1870s it was estimated that 25,000 sheep and 30,000 cattle were grazing where forests would later grow. Severe drought resulted in stock deaths and the abandonment of the leases before flooding rains in the early 1880s triggered a massive germination of cypress and Eucalyptus.

Timber communities established. Wood cutters thinned the cypress, carefully managed cool fires to reduce the fuel loads that quickly accumulated on the forests floor, created fire trails and described themselves as the “eyes and ears” of the forest. So, instead of grassland or dense acacia, magnificent Pilliga forest grew.

Armchair environmentalists came to revere the same forests, writing of their incredible biodiversity and about the barking owls.

The timber communities began losing access to the forests that they had created in 1967 when 80,239 hectares became the Pilliga Nature Reserve. In 1986, under a new government-enforced management regime, the annual rate of cypress pine sawlog production was reduced to 53,000 cubic metres. The annual forest growth rate was estimated to be 70,000 cubic metres.

In 1999 there was a new and aggressive push to convert more state forest to national park. A decision was due in 2002 but it was not until May 2005 that the timber industry, until then generating $38.4 million and employing 420 people, was told that it finally had to go.

The Australian public was told that the NSW government had saved these iconic forests.

Not true.

But it is the victor who gets to write the history in his favor, and so the origin of the magnificent Pilliga forests that were so badly burnt this summer, and the timber communities that nurtured them over more than three generations is ignored – to one day be forgotten.

***

This is a modified version of an article by Jennifer Marohasy first published in The Land newspaper. The image is from a photograph from a bushfire in the Pilliga forest in, probably, the 2006-2007 summer.

• 
• 

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has “confirmed” that it is been the hottest summer on record in Australia. But I’m sceptical.

The “record breaking hot summer” is apparently a statistical fact derived from simply averaging across 104 or 112 localities – depending on whom at the Bureau is providing the information.  No mention is made of how the temperatures for all of these localities have been “corrected” over recent years through the ACORN program [2]. In general the “corrections” are such that temperature records for specific localities pre-1970 are adjusted down, while records for specific localities post-1970 are adjusted up.

In their media release [1] attention is drawn to the town of Moomba in South Australia which apparently had the highest temperature recorded at 49.6 degrees C. Interestingly the station of Moomba only opened in 1972 – this of course is not reported in the same media release.

I’ve been trying to get a good long temperature series for some rainfall hindcasting that I’ve been doing for southeast Queensland, and have found that none of the Brisbane temperature recording stations have had any permanence. While once the main temperature recording station for Brisbane was in a bay-side suburb, in recent years the temperature recording station has been moved to the middle of East Brisbane just south of the city’s CBD – where coincidently it tends to be hotter.

The Bureau’s media release goes on to claim this summer follows a pattern of extremely hot summers in various parts of the world over the last few years.

The phenomena whereby government climate scientists correct the historical temperature record to support their theory of anthropogenic global warming is not unique to Australia. In fact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology may be simply following instructions from The Team. The Team are, of course, that notorious in-group who run policy at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. In the leaked Climategate emails there is discussion involving The Team focused on the need to reduce global sea surface temperatures, SST, during the early part of the 20th Century by about 0.15 degree C.. By reducing, the blip in SST temperatures for example between 1940 and 1945, it is suggested that the rate and magnitude of global warming for the period 1910 to 1945 can be made to not exceed the rate and magnitude of warming for the 35 year to 2009.

Interestingly recent “corrections down” to historical global temperatures by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS, have been concentrated in this period, Figure 1. The net effect of the adjustments has been to generate a more smoothly increasing global temperature since 1880, and reduce a warming blip that occurred in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

The US National Climatic Data Center has also been making “corrections” to the historical global temperature record, Figure 2.  Indeed through administrative means January 1915 can be made to appear significantly cooler than January 2013, Figure 2.

This used to be known as cooking the books, however, of course, our esteemed climate scientists have detailed justifications for all the changes they have been busily making to all the global historical temperature databases.

*****

1. Issued March 1, 2013: Bureau of Meteorology confirms it’s been the hottest summer on record… http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20130301.shtml
2. A team of independent auditors, bloggers and scientists went through the BOM “High Quality” dataset and found significant errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments, read more here… http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/
3. Figures 1 and 2 are courtesy of Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosiences at the University of Oslo, Norway.  Click on the above charts for a slightly improved view. Visit http://www.climate4you.com for the best view and background information.

• 
•