The ABC television program Four Corners promotes itself as “investigative TV journalism at its best”. It certainly has a reputation, and an ability to get its programs talked about even before they have been shown.
I have already received several emails and a phone call about tonight’s program which is titled The Greenhouse Mafia and by Janine Cohen.
I usually play tennis on a Monday night, but I will have to see if I can get out of this commitment so I can watch the program.
The preamble at the Four Corners website suggests a conspiracy is about to be uncovered, with comment including:
“Are Australians getting the whole truth on global warming?
Not according to evidence given to Four Corners, which returns with disturbing allegations about the power wielded by industry lobbyists, the self-proclaimed greenhouse “mafia”.
A whistleblower steps forward with claims that industry representatives have burrowed deep inside the federal bureaucracy in a successful bid to hijack greenhouse policy.
“Their influence over greenhouse policy in Australia is extraordinary”, he observes.“
Science in Australia has certainly become very politicised.
In my experience it is usually the ‘environment industry’ pulling the strings; click here for something of a review by Prof Bob Carter.
I received the following note from a government scientists recently on an issue unrelated to greenhouse:
“Most would not understand how much control over scientists there is.
When …[information deleted so scientists can not be identified]… they were “directed” from on high in overall scope. Comments at press conferences are rehearsed. Between the Minister’s Office and the operational senior scientist … [chain of command]… then to Deputy Director General, across to a policy group, then Public Affairs (press and spin), then the Minister’s minders, then the Minister and maybe Premier. If its hot maybe through [another Department mentioned here] and Premiers. Perhaps shot at by [another government department] in counter move by them. Briefs and public statements are written and rewritten. Some might argue it’s about responsibility and quality control – but it often becomes sinister.“
There is a real need for much more openness. Government scientists must be free to put the evidence and argue their case. Policy on environmental issues should be informed by the best science.
But I am wary of tonight’s program.
I do hope it is not just another industry bashing exercise. Their journalist Ticky Fullerton got it wrong on the Murray River and certainly botched the program on Tasmanian forestry; click here for my blog on ‘the forestry job’ and this article by Christian Kerr from Crikey on Four Corners titled the ABC’s Paralysis on Bias is a good read.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m surprised that you rely on Bob Carter as an authority, given his propensity to make a right royal fool of himself. The realclimate.org dismantling of Bob’s prattle on climate change is hilarious in a sad kind of way.
see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220
Steve,
Why don’t you read the piece by Bob Carter that I link to, and then tell us what you think about the ‘environment industry’ and science?
You might also understand Bob better – from this piece.
The issues are complex.
I won’t bother watching – I don’t need to, to know what the message will be ; evil John Howard , the stooge of satanic big business preventing honest scientists from speaking out to protect the community blah blah blah.
Bob Brown or some other spokesperson for the “goodies” will condemn the neo-cons and the other ” baddies” and we’ll be left with a dire half vague threat of armageddon hanging over our heads.
George Bush might well cop a whack or to as well.
It’s the same script they follow faithfully everytime.
Now if they devoted a story to fairly representing AGW sceptics or challenging GMO opponents or questioning the legality of Greenpeace’s recent activities in the Southern Ocean , etc etc it might inspire more curiousity from the chronically bored and surprise the cynics.
But pushing itself that hard, confronting it’s own prejudices that honestly ; we’ll have to wait a long time I suspect.
Steve, before I wrote my intro on this topic, simply many in science are paid to write what others want to see I decided to checkout Jen’s link to Carter. Although I know nothing about Bob or what he did elsewhere his article is close to what I saw right through my own involvement with science, particularly with its application to industry.
Try checking research on our regular food industries for starters say margarine versus butter. I do however have great faith in our public debates over issues in uncovering truths. On this score we often knock off tall poppies and keep the rest in line over time.
Things have changed drastically over time since the practical people were forced out of policy development at every level. A glance at all the exclusive rhetoric now in relation to things like risk management is all we need to see what happened. We build science around modern jargon today so ordinary folk can be left out of public decision making.
Clear thinking on complex issues suffers most. Good engineering can easily be replaced by rigorous compliance to a set of legal statements in this new regime.
Jennifer, your reference to other ABC programs, forestry in particular worries me in our lead up to tonight’s program as the federal election just past greatly heated any debate around that issue. I consider myself lucky to have decided long ago to vote straight down the middle and spray preferences either way on occasions. I read NAFI like another private blog after years of direct exposure to all practice in that industry including illegal logging and dubious government management at the grass roots here.
As in all unionised activity I ever watched though journalists watching from the fringe can get the story so wrong. It’s like grabbing a raging bull by the foot.
I enjoyed reading Bob Carters piece, thought provoking on issues of research funding, even though i generally don’t agree with his AGW views.
I would like to comment on the ‘science isn’t consensus’ idea from Bob Carter’s piece. I think this is untrue.
The =Scientific Method= is certainly not based on consensus. I think Prof Carter has articulated that.
But once an experiment is conducted, its results have to be published. It doesn’t matter how good the experiment is, how rigorous it was, how profound its results, how esteemed the researcher – that single publication doesn’t make the result ‘true’ in the minds of all other people. It generally takes other researchers to repeat and verify the experiment and publish the fact, before the result is generally accepted, or the hypothesis proven. That is science.
So while the scientific method is not consensus-driven, it is
unquestionable
that the common pool of knowledge, that dynamic ever changing thing with branches and ideas that die and grow back and evolve, that pool of knowledge known as SCIENCE, is owned by all and is created through consensus.
A maverick hasn’t contributed to the development of Science until a consensus of others accepts his/her work.
To suggest that scientific knowledge is 100% relativistic is post-modern nonsense.
However the opposite, to suggest that science is only about absolute facts that a maverick can determine without sharing or gaining agreement from anyone else, is also nonsense.
I recall the story of the mathematician (can’t recall who) who claimed he had a particular proof for a certain formula, but never had the proof published. It took 100 years or something for someone to prove that the original mathematician was right. But who did the mathematics? the original guy who didn’t share, or the subsequent mathematicians who worked away trying to prove the formula, slowly building up knowledge until eventually somebody got the proof? Dang, wish i could remember the name of the mathematician! anyone?
I don’t think the environmental movement pulls strings to any greater degree than, say, the property industry or the mining industry, or the banking sector or ??? We’ll have to differ on that.
However, I find it telling that you used the word ‘industry’ after environment, and whacked it in inverted commas.
“Environment industry”.
That seemed a bit sardonic.
As though you were using the word ‘industry’ to mock the environment movement. But why would the word ‘industry’ be so mocking?
I have seen it used mockingly to describe the ‘aboriginal industry’ and the ‘culture industry’ as other examples.
I think it is a very common theme to perceive big business and industry as being strong lobbyists – the strongest lobbyists – which is why using ‘environment industry’ is used to cast the environment movement as being expert at lobbying.
It seems that everyone knows who really pulls the strings, even Jennifer!
Note that in the ABC’s promo material they refer to Hansen’s claimed gagging by the US administration but fail to mention that he is a self admitted gross exaggerator of a particularly important set of facts and relationships. Does that make him a common liar?
And given Ms Fullerton’s record on Tasmanian forests, is there a consensus that she, too, is a gross exaggerator? Or is there merely a substantial body of evidence that would lead reasonable men and women to reach that conclusion? Perhaps she could explain to us what the difference is between a gross exaggerator and a common liar?
So why is he a liar then Ian? Tell us again.
Phil, Ian has made a point and used question marks. Let’s not see the thread degenerate by you prodding him in a particular direction that we have already been over many times. Let’s instead, stay civil, and discussion Australian science, government and perhaps also the role of the media
What did you Phil, think of the paper by Bob Carter? Ian have you read it?
I defer to the Chair:
I was surprisingly in agreement with Bob Carter’s summation of the changes and regrettable politicisation of public science which leaves us in the undesirable position we have been through here discussing the ramifications of tree clearing and salinity policy.
However having heard on radio that the CSIRO manager who so-called “censored” Pearman suggest that CSIRO should provide science to support policy not make policy. That is why he asked Pearman to not engage.
Which is also echoed by Zillman in his Dec 2005 I have quoted previous – can scientists be advocates?
Which would explain perhaps why Schneider, Ehrlich, Lovelock, and Hansen find themselves in the cooking pot. Scientists as advocates.
Some recent politicians have said “scientists on tap not on top”.
It’ a very fine line – what does a senior scientist with a substantial career investment do if he or she feels that the government policy on an environmental issue is dreadful.
Madam Chairperson – Ian and I are always civil – our exchanges are merely “robust”.
The next lot of comments will surely indicate what is at stake on this blog, Australian science or international politics.
Perhaps those who know Gwen Andrews well and her position on everything will push this envelope into something worthwhile.
No doubt about it. Ticky is getting good at what she does. Right little propaganda rag of a program. Full allegations and ‘style, but little substance.
Helen,
In WA here, so obviously I can ignore Four Corners.
Have more important things to do that watch ABC PC PAP.
🙂 Cheers
I think the eminent scientists interviewed gives one a rare view of life within the science/management/political ecosystem.
Scientists on tap not on top.
Well, we are just an hour behind the rest of the world here in Brisbane. Left tennis early ..to hear that government consults, lobbiest brag, and CSIRO is meant to comment on science but not push the policy agenda too far?
Come-on, the federal government got ABARE scientists to shred a document on the cost of veg management legislation in about 1999! A better story there.
I am going, though, to check out Barnie Fortrans comment that the ethanol report from government was positive? And who said CSIRO can’t comment publically about sea level rise?
I watched maybe the first 10 minutes, and became disinterested once the usual Fossil Fuel hobby horse was introduced.
I received an SMS later on in the night from nephew in Sydney who did watch it.
“expletive deleted”.
I wonder what the ratings were.
What a superficial and low grade piece of journalism that was.
Just because some egomaniac in the coal industry was indulged to provide information to the construction of a Cab Sub, he thought that he was being actively involved in the Cab Sub itself. Unless he saw the actual document presented to the Minister and which the Minister signed off on, then it was all only back ground stuff.
As for the rest of it I thought the CSIRO position on the issue of not commenting on the policy but sticking to the science was absolutely correct.
After all the CSIRO has enough trouble reporting good science never mind trying to influence policy based upon poor data and even poorer analysis. Its really pathetic stuff to raise the non-issue of Tuvalu, for one example.
I was dreaming, wasn’t I, when I thought someone said that global temperatures might rise by 4 deg. C by mid-century?
Malcolm,
Tuvalu is rather interesting.
My contacts in the RAN told me that a long scientific study indicated that there was no evidence of sea level rise. That report was given to teh Tuvalu government.
It was not what they wanted and apparently altered the report to suit – principal aim was to extract more money from the world bank.
Identities have to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
And Ian, I don’t know, I did not watch most of it. I believe that temperature is the computer prediction for the la-la land of a planet, far, far away. Our usual suspects are immigrants from that planet.
No prima facae evidence in the form of cabinet documents with coal-smudged fingerprints, but a high profile whistleblower with taped recordings is not bad. Jennifer has assumed it was just industry bragging. Maybe, maybe not. I can believe either side, and wouldn’t assume anything.
I thought the journalism was good – she did a good job of making Ian Campbell squirm and answer the questions.
I also felt sorry for Kevin Hennessy. The exchange with him made this bit seem funny:
JANINE COHEN: What about if it reflects badly on government policy? Does that matter? Are they free to say whatever they like?
SEN. IAN CAMPBELL, FED. ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Absolutely. I mean, give me an example of where a scientist is not allowed to say what they want?
And despite Malcolm’s thoughts, the program also did a good job of drawing attention to the fact that there is a lot of grey area in the question of what is science and what is policy.
A recent crikey story on similar subject:
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/02/10-1132-987.html
In the full transcropt of Guy Pearse’s interview, the IPA gets a few mentions. I’d link to it, but the comment keeps getting blocked for questionable content. You can find it on the 4corners website
I thought a potentially good expose was let down by the use of tacky editing; juxtaposing a question on one topic with answers given to another question. Why 4 corners thinks it has to play these games is beyond me. Perhaps they don’t have the money to do a proper investigation. I felt a bit sorry for the whistleblower – he probably had legitimate concerns but took them to the wrong journos. He’ll have to go offshore to work again?
On the topic of the expose, it has been disappointing that the Govt set up the MRET scheme to stimulate the development of renewable energy and has now failed to deepen or expand the scheme. Result – the value of renewable energy credits (RECs) has crashed because there are more than enough wind projects in the pipeline to ensure that RECs will be in oversupply. If you wanted to kill off renewable energy, this would be a good way to do it. Flush out all the interested parties and then send them broke so no one will go near it again. Was this some sort of coal-inspired conspiracy? No evidence was presented by 4 corners to say that it was, just a lot of innuendo. Seems a lot more like typical cock-up than a carefully laid plan prepared by a group of powerful men in the background walking quietly and carrying big sticks.
Transcript says in part:
Q. What’s the role of the Institute of Public Affairs as far as climate change goes?
A. I think the Institute of Public Affairs is one of a number of organisations which the group we’re talking about has used to underpin their arguments to government to give them more authority and the IPA has close links with the Liberal Party going back many years and they’re closely affiliated with other sceptic organisations such as the Lavoisier Institute for example.
Q. What is that institute?
A. You can take a look at their website but they’re a fairly small organisation of formerly quite senior people in government and industry who have decided that a part of their mission in retirement is to undermine ah Australia’s greenhouse policy and to delay efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions as long as they possibly can, I believe, and they spend a lot of time arguing the science.
Q. Even today?
A. Well and truly, yeah. They haven’t given up the fight and one thing I found interesting about looking at the Lavoisier Group is that they accused the green movement and those that want something done about climate change as acting as if it was a new religion, that environmentalism is some kind of religion and yet they pursue the debate over the science with a an almost religious zeal themselves.
Q. And these groups are inter-linked?
A. They are, in fact if you look at the Lavoisier Group for example, they have the same postal address as the HR Nichol Society, which is another association with close links to the IPA; you see these common threads permeating through this whole group.
Q. Can you talk about how the government sees access to cheap energy as critical to Australia’s economy being competitive?
A. Within some sections of government, there’s a religious zeal around Australia’s economy being based on very, very cheap fossil energy. That underpins a lot of government policy and has done for quite a long time now. Um that’s almost impossible to question within government circles and there’s certainly a degree of self-censorship that goes on because of that issue. It’s an article of faith and it’s ironic given that we have such low energy prices already. In fact if you look back on the history of the aluminium industry in Australia, one of the reasons why they came here from places like Japan, was for that cheap fossil fuel energy, and that’s been really a self-reinforcing situation.
Q. Why do you think the Government’s putting millions of dollars into geosequestration?
A. I think the Government’s spending money on geosequestration because they genuinely believe that Australia would be squandering enormous economic opportunities if they were to allow the coal industry to be threatened, given that we have hundreds of years supply of coal in this country. I think they believe it would be irresponsible not to capitalise on those economic opportunities. I’ve got no problem whatsoever with geosequestration being explored and proven. I think it’s great if they can do it. I suppose my concern, and the concern of many others in government in Canberra here, is whether or not we should be throwing more public money at an unproven technology or whether we should be asking the fossil fuel industry to clean up its own act.
Can’t help but the religion part had something for all of us ! (eh Louis?)
Steve
I dont think for one minute that Campbell was made to squirm. He was incredulous at the dumbness and shallowness of the questions.
Any journalist worth their salt knows how the Cabinet document mechanism works. For the ABC to propogate that crap is pathetic
I am fully in accord with Bob Carter’s assessment and can add an example that is much closer to home. I have had reports that senior QDPI officers were required to pass any final draft ministerial briefings on forest related issues to Aila Keeto of the Australian Rainforest Conservation society for veting prior to presentation to the then Minister, Henry Palaszczuk. Ms Keeto is a personal friend of the Premier and wife of a senior public servant who’s ill-informed, idle whims appear to have a greater access to formal consideration than the formal policy submissions of actual forest owner organisations.
Under the Canberra Times front page heading ‘CSIRO scientists pressured to leave Wentworth group” in an article by Rosslyn Beeby our science reporter, Mr Gauran, government agencies (Gwen?), farm industry lobby groups and “right wing think tank” the Institute of Public Affairs get a mention.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/home.asp
Unfortunately today’s www CT articles are delayed by technical difficulties.
Now; I wonder why the IPA got interested in Wentworth and its makeup
Phil,
You are very good at cutting and pasting other people’s comments which relieves you of the chore of actually having to think of something original and then post it here.
I was going to counter your plaigirism with various left-wing think-tank examplesbut then I realised that would be using oxymorons as an argument. So I thought better of it.
You should realise that Four Corners is aimed at the lowest common denominator and your support of its content suggests they achieved their aim.
So the answer to the question posed by Ms Fullerton, “Are Australians getting the whole truth on global warming? May need some minor editing to say, “Not according to evidence provided by (not, given to) Four Corners”. The ABC and the supposedly gagged scientists have had ample time to deliver the “whole truth” on global warming but it is now a matter of record that they have chosen not to do so.
Well Jennifer, I did read Bob Carter’s piece and watch the 4 Corners program. Bob’s piece says exactly what I thought it would. It merely reconfirmed my views about the IPA.
I also note your comments above where you dismiss the issues the 4 Corners program raised. Sorry, not good enough.
The CSIRO manager stated categorically that scientists must not publicly comment on proportions and target dates for greenhiouse gas emissions as they are “policy” issues.
What absolute nonsense. Targets and proportions are very much scientific issues.
In any event, scientists who are on the public payroll should be free to candidly address the public. Indeed, it is their duty. The public’s right to know is far more important than a Government’s desire not to be embarrassed.
Shame on you for supporting the censorship of science.
By the way, steve munn, that realclimate sites use of a distinction between water vapour and clouds is a bit pedantic, don’t you think? I could have sworn that clouds were essentially a concentration of water vapour. All more than just a bit self serving and the rest of the analysis is dependent on it.
And the 4th dot point commits the same error they accuse Carter of.
“The ‘3%’ number actually comes from comparing the human emissions with the gross emissions from natural sources while neglecting to consider the large natural sink. Because of the rapid cycling between the biosphere, the atmosphere and the upper ocean, that is an irrelevant comparison – kind of like comparing the interest on your bank account and your salary and expecting to be able to say something about your savings without thinking about your spending”.
But note that no attempt is made by realclimate to determine net anthropogenic carbon emissions. Instead, they launch straight into the now discredited “ice core” based pre-industrial Co2 guestimates. It is hardly a ‘dismantling’ of Bob’s position although it may qualify as “hilarious in a sad kind of way”, but certainly not in the sense that you have taken it.
Ian,
watervapour vs clouds – I thought clouds were essentially minute droplets of suspended water rather than water vapour (or gas per se). There is an interesting transition of phase involved that I suspect.
Flying through clouds leaves one wet.
In any case no one has yet been able to comeup withing model that can predict cloud behaviour and formation.
Posted for Walter Starck
……………………………….
Actually the “Greenhouse Mafia” report was quite informative, if one was unaware that:
* Important industries do try to influence governments. (As do numerous other interests including environmental organizations.)-
* Lobbyists are in the business of selling access and influence. (Their claims about how much they have should be seen accordingly.)-
* Governments often seek and use input from particular interest groups in formulating policy involving them. (Probably because this works better than seeking input from parties with little or no understanding of the matter, despite their lack of bias.)-
* Research organizations sometimes do advise their researchers not to offer policy prescriptions on contentious political issues, most especially where such may be perceived as representing the position of the institution itself and not just their personal opinion. . (However, as CSIRO researchers have been a major source of dramatic GW claims any attempt at muzzling public discussion of basic GW research by them seems to have either been lacking or grossly ineffective.)
The dramatic opening and closing scenes of fires, floods, and storms and the “Greenhouse Mafia” title were indeed masterstrokes. In summary, this was just another media beat-up. To borrow a phrase “… it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,signifying nothing.”
Walter
……………
Posted for Walter Starck
Louis – thanks for your comment. But have a look in your own backyard. Your site is simply full of recycled contrarian stuff you’ve picked up elsewhere plus quoting Jen every other post. I do not always cut and paste. The paste I made above was relevant IMHO. The aspect of religious denialism and throwing any argument you can think of, regardless of quality, is your trademark. Pot calling the kettle black I think.
On the program last night I was not all that surprised – about what one would think would go on. We’re elcting our politicians for better of worse and they need to weigh up competing arguments from divergent sources. Whether the industry contacts had the actual degree of influence they claim or were bragging is hard to tell.
The programme also mixed up two themes together. I think the issue of scientists commenting or not commenting on policy is a fine line. I’d be interested in the views of the blog. Is it black and white or is it not that simple?
I think many scientists (and ordinary people) confuse ‘advocacy’ and ‘policy’ and ‘science’. I have a copy of an email (leaked) from John Williams (x-CSIRO chief of Land and WAter) to his staff in late 2003 in which he confuses all these issues. Perhaps I should post it? It is an attack on my work and the IPA and he outlines how the CSIRO works with the Wentworth group.
PS The alliance between the Wentworth Group and CSIRO was a bluring of ‘advocacy’ and ‘science’?
I agree Walter, I am one of those who look at the pictures rather than listening to the argument. We saw chunks of ice falling off icebergs – haven’t they always done so as the bergs drift into warmer latitudes? We saw concrete towers emitting what we were presumably supposed to believe was smoke – I think, in fact, that such cooling towers emit water vapour. We also saw raging storms and bushfires. There have always been storms and bushfires. The ferocity of recent bushfires is due to heavy fuel accumulation under crackpot long fire exclusion, not climate change.
The use of such silly, dishonest images immediately made me suspect I was being conned. However, the allegations of CSIRO scientists certainly had the ring of truth. I took redundancy myself a few years back, due to exhaustion and disgust.
I hold the directly contrary view to that presented in the program: CSIRO scientists have had exceptional freedom to present their personal views, and this freedom has been used to present a one-sided perspective on climate change issues, including in official publications of the Australian Government.
I could give many examples, but for the sake of illustration I’ll focus on Dr. Barrie Pittock, who lamented on last nights program that he wasnt allowed to put policy views into a government document. Well, hes had free rein to give his opinions in the book Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat, which was published by CSIRO Publishing last October with a laudatory Foreword contributed by Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC. The book has also been published in London by Earthscan, which is marketing it as a ‘major new textbook’.
Dr. Pittock makes no pretence of objectivity. On the pros and cons of the Kyoto Protocol and of quantitative emissions targets he cites a report to three State Governments, a report by the Australian Climate Group (‘consisting of a number of industry, science, and environment experts’), the Federal Governments Chief Scientist, Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute and ‘EU and UK thinking’. He doesnt so much as mention the views of experts whove studied these subjects in depth, such as Warwick McKibbin (‘the Kyoto Protocol is so badly constructed that it has set back the search for sensible and effective policy responses by at least a decade’), Aynsley Kellow (the Protocol is ‘a step in the wrong direction, and one which could hinder rather than help future international cooperation’), Richard Tol (‘the emission reduction targets as agreed in the Kyoto Protocol are irreconcilable with economic rationality’) and William Nordhaus (‘the Kyoto Protocol is widely seen as somewhere between troubled and terminal [and] threatens to be seen as a monument to institutional overreach’).
The Australian Governments ‘stated reasons for not ratifying the Protocol’ are set beside ‘some counter arguments’ in a box which is acknowledged to be based on a lecture in which Clive Hamilton caricatured the Governments reasons as ‘Silly Reason No. 1’, ‘Silly Reason No. 2’ and so on. Dr. Pittock uses essentially the same ten reasons, but leaves out the word ‘silly’ and tones down Dr. Hamilton’s language somewhat.
Pittock represents Australias refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol as a symptom of an unenlightened attitude to the threat of climate change and to the future of humanity generally. He says that ‘The industrialised world currently gives about 0.22% of GDP [in international aid], with the United States and Australia (WHO HAVE NOT SIGNED THE KYOTO PROTOCOL) giving far less.’ This is wrong according to Yearbook Australia 2006, released by the ABS last month, which says ‘The ratio of Australia’s ODA to gross national income for 2005-06 is estimated at 0.28%, placing Australia above the donor average which, in the latest year available (2004), was 0.25%. So far as the facts are concerned, I’ll put my money on the ABS – but why was the reference to the Kyoto Protocol introduced into a discussion of foreign aid?
In my own area of interest, the IPCCs emissions scenarios, Dr. Pittocks analysis is all over the place. In Chapter 3 he says that the scenarios ‘are clearly not predictions, and do not have equal probability of occurrence in the real world.’ Then in the next Chapter, he gives a simple example of a climate change PREDICTION in which CSIRO used its projected warming in the Macquarie Valley of New South Wales of between 1.0 and 6.0 deg C by 2070 (which uses the IPCC scenarios in conjunction with CSIROs calibration for regional variation) as input to a runoff model, from which it was concluded that ‘the projected change in runoff into the main water storage dam was in fact between no change (zero) and a decrease of 35% by 2070, which means a 50% chance of water supply decreasing by more than 17%.’ This calculation implies that the IPCC scenarios DO have equal probability of occurrence in the real world.
In a box headed ‘Impacts on Food Production’, Dr. Pittock reports the results ‘for all SRES scenarios’ of ‘a major international study’ of this subject by Martin Parry and colleagues. But Parry and his team didnt use all the SRES scenarios: for example, in the A1 family they only modelled the A1FI (FI = fossil intensive) scenario, and didnt use the A1B (B = balanced) or the A1T (T = transition to sustainability) scenarios. Pittock correctly quotes the Parry et al paper as saying that the A1FI scenario is one of ‘greater inequality’, but in fact it is the scenario of LEAST inequality. He says that ‘the majority of people will be worse off’ by 2080, but with the possible exception of the A2 scenarios (which assume, improbably, that the world will by then have 14 billion people), the study shows unambiguously that the majority of people will be much better off by 2080. And so on.
Dr. Pittock has produced a 50-page set of ‘Supplementary notes and references’ to the book, which has been published on the CSIRO Publishing website. Its purpose is to avoid the need for footnotes or references to the literature in parentheses, which ‘can be offputting to the general reader’, and also to ‘bring the notes up to date, for example in relation to Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans about the beginning of September. Barrie Pittock says that, if he gets the time he ‘will try to further update these notes once or twice while the book remains current’. It appears that he’s completely free to do so.
The Supplementary Notes are outrageously one-sided. McIntyre and McKitrick are said to have made an ‘attack’ on the IPCCs ‘hockey stick’ graph, but Pittock explains that ‘Mann and co-authors are the recognised experts in the field, and thus best qualified to make the expert judgments on data quality and representativeness needed.’ (Have the experts in CSIRO’s Maths/Stats Division been consulted about thedata quality and representativeness of the work of Mann & co?) . Dr. Pittock does not mention any of the three papers by M&M that were published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005, or McIntyre’s Climate Audit site (though there are several references to the realclimate site which includes Michael Mann among its proprietors).
Dr. Pittock names Bjorn Lomborgs ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ as a classic sceptic text and cites two hostile reviews of the book (but no favourable ones). The immediately succeeding sentence begins with a reference to ‘Documentation of the fact that some [unnamed] leading contrarians have been funded by fossil fuel groups’.
Dr. Pittock claims that ‘IPCC in its emissions scenarios used both MER and PPP’, although David Henderson and I have explained in detail why it is that the so-called PPP scenarios produced by one of the IPCC’s model builders are not in fact PPP. He says that McKibben (sic) and colleagues have reviewed the argument over the use of MER or PPP in a paper published by the Lowry (sic) Institute for International Policy, but does not mention that the paper strongly criticises the IPCC emissions scenarios. Nor does he mention a paper in which McKibbin & Stegman ‘find strong evidence that the wide variety of assumptions about ‘convergence’ commonly used in emissions projectiions are not based on empirically observed phenomena.’ Nor does he mention a recent peer-reviewed paper by Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer of Monash University which lends support to the Castles & Henderson critique.
On the other hand, Dr. Pittock reports that ‘Pant and Fisher, from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, conclude in a 2004 paper ‘PPP versus MER: Comparison of real incomes across nations’ that ‘The use of MER by IPCC remains valid and the critique by Castles and Henderson cannot be sustained’. This conference paper has not been peer-reviewed, whereas the Castles and Henderson paper ‘International Comparisons of GDP: Issues of Theory and Practice’ (which Pittock does not mention) was published in World Economics, January-March 2005. The publisher of WE states that ‘All papers published in World Economics are read and reviewed by the executive editors who are all professors of economics of international repute.’
Incredibly, in the light of Barrie Pittock’s highly selective citation of sources, peer reviewed or not, which support his position, he says in his book that:
‘The peer review system means that statements based on such papers tend to be more reliable than other kinds of statements or claims. Claims made by politicians, newspaper columnists, special interest think tanks and campaign groups are not normally subject to such quality control beforehand.’
It would be interesting to know what quality control CSIRO Publishing applied to Dr. Pittock’s book.
……………………..
THIS COMMENT WAS COPIED BY JENNIFER, AND IS A NEW BLOG POST: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001183.html .
On the use of dramatic images in the introduction:
A recent good read was the book
“Everything Bad is Good for You” by Steven Johnson
Among other things, this book points to how current media is making us smarter, not dumbing us down.
Walter and Daveyesq have done a good job of seeing through and deconstructing the use of dramatic images in the opening and closing scenes.
I would think that the vast majority of TV watchers including children who are born and bred on mass communication would be more than capable of the same feats of awareness and media analysis.
I think the use of such images is a cliche on the part of 4 corners, the kind of thing that is always done in news and current affairs programs in every country of the world, and i don’t think it is a big deal.
Its merely boring – we can see what they are doing. As enlightened bloggers, I would put to you all that this kind of jaded, dramatic intro to a story is a sure sign of the slow decay of TV-based journalism in favour of internet based analysis.
Davey claims to be one who looks at pictures rather than listening to the argument. I doubt that is actually true.
An attack on the use of images in delivering a message such as we had on 4 corners raises a good argument.
What part of your brain are you thinking with and how have you trained it to operate? Can you ride a bike based on legal jargon?
I am a visual person so let’s separate along these lines and leave the usual rhetoric out of it. Images help me greatly with both perception and modelling.
Phil,
I always make sure I have a representative bit of ordnance to fire at silly people, but I see you see a forest but have no clue seeing which trees are what and what trees are which.
You need to get into the detail, which means actually understanding what the forest is comprised off.
I watched Attenborough the other night, “Life in the Undergrowth”, the world of the invertebrates, spineless creatures which inhabit the floor of the forest. The seem to need a nice warm moist environment to flourish but pity they want to destroy their environment by causing the earth to stop warming to the good ole Medieval times when they used to vines.
Goodness in England they used to grow crops on the marginal soils , 350 m ASL on the hills of Dartmoor in SW ENgland, on the Pennine Moors in the NE, and goodness me, today they can’t any more.
SO even England, the home of global warming is still in the grips of the LIA.
And the Scots, Kelso Abbey in southern Scotland had over 100 ha under cultivation, 1m,400 sheep and 16 shephard’s households, all above 300m ASL, well above today’s limits.
But the invertebrates of the undergrowth would not have known then or now, would they Phil, because they too only kept to their flat little earth under the leaves.
And the MWP was only a localised thing – sure was, the English obviously are not too interested in having vineyards. Did you know that commerial vineyards flourished as far north as Hereford and the Welsh borders? 300 to 500 Km further north than what they are now.
Brrr bloody cold in teh old Dart, What?
Thanks Steve,
Glad to know that most people see through the silly pictures. It seems, however, that the ABC thinks we don’t, otherwise why would they persist? Is that organisation turning into the Ministry for Truth? SBS is even worse – any mention of Islam (three times in one recent bulletin) requires the obligatory view of a minaret, and then Muslim bottoms raised in prayer. I must have seen a million raised Muslim bottoms in the last year or so. I am beginning to know how a colo-rectal specialist feels, and I don’t want to see any more.
I am with you on the images Taz – let’s not diverge. Picture thinking is wonderful, as long as the images are not repeated ad nauseam, and with the blatant object of molding thought. Remember Leni Riefenstahl’s film of the Nuremburg Rallies?
I should add that I find the geometric patterns and calligraphy of Muslim art very attractive – more so than Muslim bums. Perhaps ABC and SBS could show a selection of such art whenever they mention Islam?
DaveyG; Remember Rock Island Bend? Hope no one recalls this but it takes some practice to get it right like they all can today. Of course it works both ways.
A few years before I got young Kevin K from the Sun interested enough, then his editor commissioned a big story. The lads there chartered a twin engine plane and flew a long way south. But the weather had closed in over the target, a freshly flooded glacial valley and its fleeing wildlife.
What did they do? They went to the Melbourne zoo! Next day we had a three page spread including a front page photo. There was this poor wet possum dipping its paw in the water and tears flowed all over till the hydro legal people checked their flight path and demanded immediate compensation from all concerned. Poor K.K.
But guess who got a series of big spreads free.
Glad I didn’t watch it but Hey – Media Watch was a very different programme!
BTW Jennifer , we Brisbanites aren’t “behind”. The southerners are way ahead of themselves.
Louis says:
“And the MWP was only a localised thing – sure was, the English obviously are not too interested in having vineyards. Did you know that commerial vineyards flourished as far north as Hereford and the Welsh borders? 300 to 500 Km further north than what they are now.”
The so-called MWP is a major source of myths for AGW denialists.
Today there are more vinyards in Britian given than ever before.
Steve Munn
You have completely misunderstood the statement.
The issue was not number of vinyards but geographical location of vinyards.
The majority of UK vinyards are in the warmer lowlands such as Sussex, Wilshire, Pembrokeshire etc, well below the elevation of the MWP vinyards.
The reason is because it is too cool in the uplands for vines to grow there today today. One does not grow wines on the Matterhorn, for example.
I never said there were more or less, just commenting on the geographical distribution.
Oh and the source I obtained the data is The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan, P.16-18. 2000, Published by Basic Books. As well as Encarta 2005.
It might help discussion here if a keener understanding of geography was developed by our alarming climatophobists.
5d560a6b40e6 Can you write more about this