What is it about ‘global warming’ that brings out the worst in people like Tim Flannery?
Prof Flannery was on ABC Television’s The 7.30 Report last night promoting his new book. I have not read The Weather Makers but I understand from the interview last night that he proposes temperatures are going to rise by 3C and the really bad thing is that our addiction to coal is now driving weather patterns.
Prof Bob Carter, also interviewed, responded: “The idea that we can manage the climate is frankly hubris.”
Flannery also proposed a carbon tax and that this be levied immediately to move power generation away from coal to solar, wind and possibly even nuclear power.
I gather The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday and on the weekend, gave the book and the dire predictions loads of coverage.
In comment at another post Rog provided these links:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/storm-warning-on-impact-of-climate-change/2005/09/25/1127586743182.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nuclear-future/2005/09/25/1127586747151.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/flannery/biog.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Why limit your comment to Tim Flannery?
If you ask me he is a media tart, but certainly no worse a media tart than either Bob Carter or the IPA’s very own Alan Moran.
What a dud story – a bunch of media tarts commenting on the issue of the day, each peddling a predictable line and adding nothing to discussion.
I did think it interesting that in a promo for The 7.30 Report earlier in the evening Maxine McKew asked the question “Has he [Flannery] gone too far?” and introduced the interview with comment that maybe the book was “Over the top”?
The Australian newspaper has been silent on the book?
I come down on the side of Tim Flannery on how the greedy human is having a major effect on the health of the planet.
We have had the flat earthers, the jesus believers and we now have the greatest propaganda machine in motion ever.
It is interesting that Prof. Bob Carter was plucked out of the hat by the ABC as their expert on climate. Bob Carter is funded by the Australian Research Council, this body reports to none other than the honourable Minister for Education, Brendon Nelson.
Are humans *greedy* or just needy?
I thought the best comment was also from Bob Carter, namely, “that we need more facts not more hysteria”.
Here here.
Yes, there was low standard of comment in that story Malcolm – you’d have to agree with me if you think that was the best comment. Carter is supposed to be a Professor – you don’t need a Professor to make such widely accepted observation as “we need more facts less hysteria” – anybody can make such agreeable and uninteresting comments.
There is a whole subject area of tim lambert’s weblog devoted to Bob Carter, here:
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
7.30 report transcript, for those interested, here
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1468875.htm
jennifer , i suspect that you and the group you represent may well be the “do nothing,find nothing of substance” [preferably ?] group of scientists .
flannery is balancing this view from his analysis of data .
Howard and big business want only two results from scientific research on the greenhouse problem at this point – more short term profits and an inconclusive outlook for the world’s climate as they continue to eat up and sell the world’s resources .
I’m not really sure what Jen, etc are so offended about, especially considering that you haven’t even read the book yet. I saw Tim’s interview on Lateline last night and must say I was very impressed by his ability to communicate science and to take other views into account ie he doesn’t dismissed coal sequestion out of hand but said – sure it could work but it has these problems ….
He doesn’t ‘propose’ that the temperatures are going to rise by 3C he’s simply states what the IPCC says – stop greenhouse gases and temperatures will rise 1C, keep polluting and we could see the temperature rise by 3C over the next 100 years.
I’m not sure how Carter’s quote is related to Tim’s book. Has Carter read the book? Is Carter saying that in no-way can humans influence the earth’s climate? Even the likes of Bush now say that human activity does have an effect on the world’s climate and that we need to do something about it.
Tim F said *What climate change has done is change the underlying conditions, so if you look at the northern Gulf of Mexico and how warm it was right through this last summer, it was at 30 degrees Celsius. That’s enough to power the most powerful storms we know about. It has been a ticking bomb all along.*
Is he saying that without climate change storms such as Katrina and Rita would not happen?
My understanding is that tropical storms are created on water temps of +27deg C and the Gulf of Mexico is always 31-32deg C at this time of year.
Apparently another vital element is that there be little or no air movement (wind) and that is what has been experienced.
The years 1886, 1933, 1960, 1961, 1995 all had more hurricanes, 1886 had seven.
Current NOAA land temp data for the south east region;
National Climatic Data Center
Asheville, North Carolina
Based on preliminary data, the average temperature in August 2005 was 80.0 F. This was 1.7 F warmer than the 1895-2005 average, the 9th warmest August in 111 years.
The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.0 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/se.html
In reference to the quote by Prof Bob Carter I would have thought that the endless debates on any number of topics relating to AGW, was its own testimony to the fact that there are many serious issues still unresolved. It is therefore strange that a so called science communicator stands on a beach in Adelaide and claim that if all the ice in the world melted this would be under water by about 70m. That is just hysterical alarmism designed to draw attention to his books. Bob Carters comment remains valid.
I also dont understand what on earth it has got to do with anything the fact that Carter receives some ARC funding,which supposedly has a connection with some Federal Govt Minister,and is therefore likely to be biased. Thats pathetic
Pity Tim Flannery was not aware of the total turn around ob Kyiti made by Prime Minister Tony Blair on the 15th September. Our media still have not reacted to it, tough the UK media took 10 days.
He might have thought twice about preaching these doomsday prophesies.
gorsh mi spilling is bed
“In reference to the quote by Prof Bob Carter I would have thought that the endless debates on any number of topics relating to AGW, was its own testimony to the fact that there are many serious issues still unresolved.”
The main issue unresolved here is whether you choose to conservatively accept peer-reviewed establishment literature, or radically reject such literature and instead accept the ‘endless debates’ generated by the multitude of self-styled experts with web access.
Where are those endless debates happening malcolm? Not in peer-reviewed literature. The debate in peer-reviewed literature makes more progress and is less confounding and endless, eg. the healthy debate over satellite temperature trends and discrepancies which lasted over a decade and has now drawn almost completely to a close (and which, helps to refute any argument about heat island effects being responsible for warming trends in surface data).
I find it really really questionable all this talk of rejecting peer reviewed work. While peer-review has its shortcomings, its the way science works, and there is no better alternative. It is ultra-radical to reject the work in peer-reviewed journals because you disagree with what they say about global warming or jared diamond, and then bandy around the ideas of miscellaneous web-enabled climate enthusiasts or trendy commentators (like Flannery and Carter and Moran) as constructive debate, and evidence of ‘unresolved issues’.
Nothing wrong with being radical, just so long as you understand that that is what you are being.
Steve,
I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, but a few points:
1. Flannery has training and expertise in english literature and paleontology, mammology and archaelogy. He has written a new book about climate change and made recommendations with economic implications. The book has got loads of publicity, at least in part because Flannery is a modern day ‘celebrity scientist’.
2. Carter has expertise in climate change and publishes in peer reviewed journals on this subject e.g. CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662. (for more publications see http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm ).
Given Carter’s qualifications I would have thought it appropriate he be asked to comment on the book.
3. Moran has expertise and has published on the type of economics Flannery is advocating. I would have therefore considered it appropriate he be asked to comment as an economist.
My final point is,
4. Given the history of science (I am thinking Kuhn and Popper), it is worth considering the evidence from ‘outsiders’ like Hughes.
The secret, I think, in all of this, is to try and be tolerant and open minded.
I would dispute that Carter (a geologist) is any more authoritiative in commenting on climate change than Flannery as a paeleontologist. The paper you quoted is about long term climate change. Just because it has the word ‘climate’ in the title doesn’t make him an expert on the kind of issues that are argued by the IPCC.
Re Moran, he is a professional commentator with a clear political bias. Yes, its appropriate for him (and carter) to comment on someone like Flannery, but you wouldn’t simply seek a comment from him as your research on either climate change or the economics of grappling with it.
Regarding point 4. Of course science is not 100% correct, but that doesn’t mean you listen to every ‘outsider’ with an opinion. Some of them are whackos.
The secret is not just about being tolerant and open-minded.
The secret is also to get good at information filtering/selection/time management:
– get an idea of the issue, get an idea of the best places to go for info, look at as much info as you can given your time constraints.
Then based on an assessment of the quality/authority of each source of info, reject that and choose this.
If you don’t have a reasonably good way of selecting info, if you just stay ‘tolerant and open-minded’ to everything and never actually do any selection/rejection, you are going to get stuck in ‘endless debate’, and all opinions will start seeming like zen koans.
And *grin* blogs generally don’t promote tolerant and open-minded discussion. Though hats off to you – your blog achieves a vigorous discussion with a range of views….black AND white! *grin*
Steve.
1.I would have thought that the contents of ths blog, and others, was also clear evidence that there are many issues still unresolved.
2. There is also evidence that peer review has not worked adequately,witness the difficulties that MBH are coming under for their poor understanding of stats, misrepresentation of data,witholding of material that should be in the public domain.
3.What the MBH work did was to provide the evidence for the whole AGW argument being so over stated in the first place.Some would say deliberately so.
I could go on. But I repeat my original contention. Isn’t about time that the scientifc community reviewed how its prescious peer review mechanism actually performs in practice. And can someone tell me why should’nt the standards that apply to a solicitation for funds also apply to research papers eg accuracy, materiality and integrity etc etc.
Malcolm,
The MBH work is a spectacular example of how the peer-review process is working quite well – the ‘endless debate’ is occurring on the web and largely outside the peer-review process.
All of the criticism of MBH comes from outside peer-reviewed literature, with the exception of one paper by Soon Baliunas (published under controversial circumstances, and with the end result that the editors of the journal in question resigned) and a single paper published by M&M, who are criticising results that are now 7 years old and have been updated by the authors, and reproduced/verified by a range of other groups.
The apparent controversy over their work is largely a beat up, and any remaining questions are being sorted out in peer-reviewed literature. Its just a shame that all the web commentators confounded the issue for lay people like you and me.
You seem to think that the standards of publication for peer review are low. I would contend that they are actually generally quite high, and further, where controversial papers do get published, they are soon refuted by subsequent peer-reviewed, published work, or else reinforced by new studies. In the case of MBH, this is happening, and it also happened with the satellite data.
Unlike some of the radical conspiracy theorists around the place, I don’t subscribe to the idea that peer review is universally corrupt. I say ‘universally’ because it has to be very widely corrupt indeed to fail, that’s why it is so good. You need more than one or two journal editors with the same bias to convince the whole world of a lie.
Steve.
Your subsequent post is very well put, and I am persuaded to relax a little.
I recently had to put together a Information Memorandum as a solicitation for funds involving some complex material. One makes sure that everything one does in truthful and accurate and can be supported with evidence, and this is in an environment where there are legal sanctions for getting it wrong.( both from ASIC and the recipient).
I ask myself why aren’t science people subject to the same level of scrutiny and sanctions. The answer is, in part only, obvious. In most cases the papers are written under some form of public funding, where the audit role/value for money role is deficient Secondly the probabilty of getting further funding is of course geared to what is found in the first round. Self interest and lax scrutiny means that the lily gets well gilded, to the point that matters are deliberately misrepresented/over stated as MBH apparantly did.
If found out all one may cop is an embarrassing paper in rebuttal published many years later. No requirement to pay the money back etc. Oh no that would’nt do.
By the way I am not so sure that MBH98 etc have got it right,(both the maths and the ethics) but then the Barton House of Reps Review should get to the bottom of this drama, and by all reports clean up the scientific process, such as it is.
Thanks for your comments.
Perhaps if Porfessor Flannery clossed his yap, here’d be less cyclones. He should stick to fossils and teach us how to turn them into fossil fuels because as we all know the world will run out of petrol next week.
More grandstand than the MCG
No probs Malcolm, well said yourself.
It does sound like there are different methods of accountability between what you do in your work and what scientists do in theirs In your case, i’m sure the law is a reasonable way to ensure honesty (rifkin and adler aside).
The need for funding for researchis an incentive to produce interesting results, i don’t argue that.
However, I think you are downplaying the importance and impact of peer review in regulating honesty and content.
You suggest it is not really a big deal to cop an embarrassing publication down the track. I dunno. Maybe some people would be able to survive for a while like that.
But I think that, for an academic, their reputation is absolutely critical to their livelihood, and also their identity. Why on earth would you want to be an academic if not to seek and publish the truth? You can make better money in the private sector. Academics do what they do because they want to be known for having contributed something worthwhile.
I think that having your research publically shown to be in error must be an incredible blow to take, so much so that academics tend to defend their work to the hilt.
This might deter academics from admitting error, but it also gives them caution in putting out sketchy results for their peers to scrutinise.
I gave it away, but for while i attempted a PhD. Part of the reason why i quit was that i hated my topic and my work – i did not feel that the research i was doing was worthwhile. My supervisor encouraged me to write a conference paper on the work i had done. I wrote an abstract and it was accepted into the conference. But all while writing up the actual paper and doing the research, I was paranoid of what would be said about my paper, and had many sleepless nights imagining being publically humiliated in front of all the other academics at the conference.
In the end, it was not (in my opinion) a very good paper, though no fruit was hurled, and i soon quit the life of an academic, which is by no means a cushy and priviledged existence.
BBC are calling for calm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4276242.stm
Opinion on Climate Change from Bob Carter published today in the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/all-the-signs-of-fullblown-mother-earthism/2005/09/28/1127804546992.html
What is it about “doom and gloom” that captures so many Australians? It is like a cult religion.
Global warming aside, why don’t typhoons make the news very much? You don’t hardly read about it in the news but there have been a number of typhoons this year that have struck china, taiwan, vietnam, okinawa, japan.
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/s1470706.htm
“Another typhoon is brewing in the western Pacific Ocean, just hours after Typhoon Damrey blew itself out over Thailand after killing at least 71 people.
Typhoon Damrey was downgraded to a tropical depression on Wednesday after carving a swathe of destruction in a week-long sweep through East Asia.
AFP newsagency reports the storm killed 36 people in Vietnam, 16 in the Philippines, 16 in southern China and three in Thailand.
Typhoon Damrey caused more than $US1 billion damage in China, breached sea dykes in Vietnam, and brought widespread flooding to northern Thailand.
There are now reports that Typhoon Longwang is building strength in the western Pacific Ocean, with winds of more than 200 kilometres an hour, as it heads for Taiwan. ”
Carter is guilty of most of the things he complains about — including cherry picking data.
For example, most of the global warming observed since 1950 is likely to be due to human activities (according to the IPCC; Stott, 2003; Karoly and Braganza, 2005). This is much more than 0.04 degrees C that Carter cites.
His statement “computer models suggest that a further human-caused increase in temperature of perhaps two-tenths of a degree might be averted” is an estimate based on implementing the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012.
Of course, extending emission reductions beyond 2012 can reduce global warming further. In fact, stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm by 2100 can reduce the range of global warming at that time to 1.2-2.3oC, down from the unmitigated range 1-.4-5.8oC (according to the IPCC).
Carter numbers among the few remaining climate sceptics. Unfortunately here in Australia, where coal is still king, he finds a gullible audience.
TryScience,
What’s your source for Bob Carter saying 0.04 degrees C? I can’t find it in the transcript of the “7:30 Report” nor in the Sydney Morning Herald article and I’m curious.
Also, what is your source for saying that a further reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will reduce global warming further? You say that stabilising at 450ppm by 2100 will reduce the warming to 1.2 to 2.3C but I can’t see where you get your information from.
TIA
John