On 31st January there was a piece in The Age titled ‘Scientists worried by reef bleaching’ quoting Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, with Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation suggesting the problem of bleaching that Ove was so worried about, could be fixed if only the Australian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
I received an email from a reader of this blog a couple of weeks ago pointing out that expert, and academic, Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg keeps changing his tune on global warming and its impact on the reef. He wrote:
“Within a little over a month, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s estimates have dropped from 50-60 percent to 1 percent of the reef bleached. That is simply an amazing change over a short period of time, particularly when you consider the amount of time required to do field work, analyse data etc. In the later article, Ove appears to be discrediting the scientists who made the initial estimates, when of course they were his!
I will be interested to see if Ove makes a statement also modiyfing his claims that the reef will be dead and barren within 30 to 50 years.
My feeling is that the initial claims were simply scaremongering and the disappointing thing is his willingness to go public with such claims with only preliminary data rather than any real published material.”
Herald Sun Columnist Andrew Bolt also noticed the inconsistencies in the advice from Ove:
“How many times must the experts be wrong about Barrier Reef devastation before we disbelieve their scares?
HOW many times must the Great Barrier Reef “survive” before we figure it’s not really dying?
Actually, the real question is a bit ruder.
As in: How many times can global-warming alarmists such as Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg be wrong about the reef’s “devastation” before we learn to ignore their scares?
The trouble is our reef is so well-loved that green militants, desperate that we back their theory of man-made global warming, consider it the perfect hostage.
No month goes by without one screaming: “Freeze! Out of the car, or the reef gets it!”
And Hoegh-Guldberg, head of Queensland University’s Centre for Marine Studies, has threatened us more often than most.
Just three months ago he was at it again, issuing a press release with a grim warning: High temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
Just four paragraphs on he upped the ante, warning that the warm seas “may result in greater damage” still — to more than 60 per cent of the reef — and we “have to rapidly reduce the rate of global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”
You heard him, jerk. Get out of your car.
But as anyone who’s seen the reef lately knows, it’s still there and still beautiful.
Ask — hey! — Hoegh-Guldberg himself. He’s just back from a trip out to the outer reef and reports that, um, the bleaching, er, has had, well, “quite a minimal impact”, after all. In fact, just 1 per cent was affected.
And history tells us even that little bit will recover.
What history? The history of an earlier Hoegh-Guldberg scare.
In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg was commissioned by Greenpeace — warning — to find out why bits of the reef had just turned white.
Global warming was to blame, he concluded, which pleased Greenpeace awfully.
More, it moaned, and the professor obliged: Warming seas meant “coral reefs could be eliminated from most areas of the world by 2100”.
Click here to keep reading.
You don’t need to be really clever to work out that global warming might not be so good for polar bears, but it is probably going to be OK for Nemo, as I’ve explained previously, click here.
But even the Australian Financial Review can’t help but scaremonger. An article in the Review on Friday (BCA Warms to Climate Change Rethink, pg. 57) claimed a 1C temperature rise would result in 81 percent of the Great Barrier Reef bleaching. One degree was the extent of the temperature rise last year according to the Bureau of Meterology. The Review would have published the one degree temperature rise for last year, and is now publishing that a one degree rise will bleach most of the reef! How confused must editors and journalists be with all the global warming scaremongering?
Several commentators at this blog have been indignant about the letter from the 60 skeptics in which the scientists suggested there has been some exaggeration, and there could be more public consultation about climate change issues (see comments following the blog post here). They claim the letter ignores the science and seriousness of the issue and is just about playing politics. But these same commentators will ignore the more ridiculous claims from Ove and other ‘believers’ who spin stories that result in completely nonsense predictions.
On a brighter note, here is a little Nemo from The Great Barrier Reef:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well Andrew Bolt should actually be given the Climate Booby award. He’s the greatest climate sceptic ninny ever developed by the media. Would take you pages to reply to the nonsense emanating from his columns. But then again why argue – rumour says he’s just a paid actor to act as a shock jock to stir up the greenies. He needs a new script writer though as he’s getting predictable.
And who the hell is Ove anyway ? Just because some UQ guy throws a wobbley this is of some pith and moment.
Interestingly though – so Reefs never bleach I take it? I don’t think you have given any serious thought to the issue at all Jen – it’s not based on any evidence just speculation and extrapolation. And AGW is just getting started – we also have to also see where the pH is heading.
Again I see this as more desperation as the climate change evidence mounts. A last gasp by the sceptics to head off the inevitable with the growing realisation that they’ve stuffed it. A crazed last attempt to protect the big end of town at all costs.
You’ve become very predictable Phil, one rant every 10 minutes.
10-11 words – about normal
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, peabrain (11 words)
Charming Rog.
How come I was left out of this squabble. Guys, please continue as it’s nice not having the spotlight on me for a change.
Phil I think you are a bigger squabbler than I am. You jus dress it up more.
By the way like the, “no rain the the desert” routine, blaming that on me. Phil it was you who couldn’t distinguish between the Amazon and the Gobi. I was the one who pointed out to you that there is less water in the desert and therefore less wildlife. Racall?
You are offended Travis?
I think that Phil’s tactic of using defamatory comments on every thread is pretty weak, most of the people he is defames with seemingly wanton abandon have no course of redress yet when confronted he uses morality as a shield.
The irony is that he pretends to be pro science and pro fact yet has to rely on personal attacks to score points.
I guess that is why he is here 24/7 and not at work.
Phil,
At a glace, it would appear that:
Andrew Bolt is just a dumb columnist (sorry Andrew) who writes for a tabloid newspaper with a large circulation.
Ove, by contrast, is a professor and director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland with over a dozen postgraduate students and then some more post graduate fellows ( http://www.cms.uq.edu.au/MAPSLAB/members.htm ).
What a big toady hypocrite you are Bird Brain – you the greatest “ram raider” and knife merchant of all time.
Have you studied the facts of the case. Have you read Mr Bolt’s works? Stop raving and start arguing !
Jen – Bolt couldn’t get any lower if he tried. Ask his readers !
Phil, which bit did Bolt get wrong and which bit did Ove get wrong? or are you just working from a basis of perception – rather than fact?
As usual its zero about the reef and full tilt into the messenger – have you studied the facts of the case. Have you read Mr Bolt’s works? Stop raving and start arguing !
i have mashed bananas for brains
Jennifer – I have seen a large number of columns now by Andrew Bolt using all the usual contrarian try-ons and ruses. It’s utterly infuriating. People write in and complain – but he just revels in it.
I think the responsibility goes back to you as a scientist – we know that reefs do bleach. We know El Nino years can make it worse. AGW is just getting started. The rate of change in warming is rapid in comparison to recent geological change. And we do have changes in ocean pH looming as well. We don’t know enough and laughing because the reef didn’t bleach last year isn’t the last laugh on the issue.
What Australia does about its emissions won’t matter in the scheme of things but if everyone adopted that attitude .. ..
I’ve written some solid comments on the GBR on this blog before and I’m disinclined to rewrite them here because few people seem open to listen, ie a waste of my effort. Bolt is hardly a credible source. Prrhaps he did reveal inconsistencies from this scientist, but even if the scientist is a ninny too, does it change the science? Is there any effort to reveal any solid science in this post by Jennifer either?
As I understand the scientific view on the GBR, the treatment above is a tad simplistic. Perhaps the reef won’t die out but perhaps it will lose a great deal of its complexity and beauty as the heavier heat tolerant corals and symbionts take over, and become more weedy (fast colonisers). Perhaps the shallow reefs will be reduced by more intense storm events. It’s not just the simple facts such as average sea temperatures but the occurrence and timing of hotspots; it’s also the timing and location of several events (eg unusual weather events during important spawning times); it’s the possibility that overheating increases vulnerability to diseases which may also be amplified by pollution and runoff which also results from more intense storms; the possiblity that recovery will be reduced by acidification interfering with the reef-building process. Such a complex interplay of factors, more research is needed to understand the causal factors and the responses better but for now we can expect that more bleaching occurs and recovery from bleaching episodes is reduced and this changes the composition of the reef as more warming occurs (also because of the skewing of coral ages). Total death of the reef might not be imminent, instead it might simply change from being the Great Barrier Reef to Just Another Reef.
No Phil,
Ove H-G makes the most outrageous claims and you excuse him – because you believe in AGW.
Andrew Bolt shows the gross inconsistencies in the Professor’s thesis and you tell us Bolt is infuriating.
I find the extent of the denial amazing.
I see Pinxi is also conveniently missing the point.
OK, so we now have someone using by name and my email address – the “mashed bananas” is not my post.
Amazing what antics these characters get up to.
Phil is in denial of the evidence and Pinxi prattles on about how nobody listens to her…
..market forces pixie..
Gee Jennifer, have you considered finding out what Hoegh-Guldberg said? Here’s the material that somehow did not make it into Bolt’s column.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Cyclone-Larry-saves-reef-from-bleaching/2006/03/27/1143330961358.html
—————————————
Cyclone Larry has helped save the Great Barrier Reef from a major bleaching event by lowering the water temperatures, a marine specialist says.
Category five cyclone Larry roared westwards across the reef and onto north Queensland on Monday, leaving wrecked homes, crops and businesses in its wake.
Also this week, Cyclone Wati developed in the Coral Sea and moved south-east as a category three storm, parallel to the coast, and whipping up huge seas.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland’s (UQ) Centre for Marine Science said the two cyclones at the end of the wet season came in time to save the reef from bleaching after a one degree rise in sea surface temperatures above the normal summer maximum due to global warming.
“By creating waves, storms can cause the water column to mix and this can be a good thing, if in the case of a bleaching event, you’ve had warm water sitting over a coral reef area,” he said.
Prof Hoegh-Guldberg said cyclones could also have a destructive impact if they sat over coral reefs and broke them up through wave action.
But he said Larry was one of the fastest-moving cyclones, moving around 25kph and crossed the reef within hours, before destructive waves had time to develop.
Prof Hoegh-Guldberg said cyclones Larry and Wati together had helped avoid an event similar to that of 2002 when over 60 per cent of the reef was bleached and 10 per cent actually died.
“It’s certainly eliminated any possibility that a final blast of summer might have caused further damage from coral bleaching, so for that, we are relieved,” he said.
———————————
I’ve been following Ove and his pronouncements for years. Which bit did Bolt get wrong?
Jen – you get a selection of Newstext clippings of Bolt’s on AGW and we’ll start.
And it does make a difference how a columnist of media is influencing public opinion every day.
IMHO your case on AGW not eventually affecting the reef is really weak. You have not documented a case – just had a laugh that the reef didn’t suffer a bleaching event this year. Tim Lambert makes a good point !
Frankly I find your selectivity worrisome.
At issue is that Ove H-G, who directs the UQ study program/marine centre, makes ridiculous pronouncements and it doesn’t worry you guys? It’s OK for academics to exaggerate as long as they are telling us global warming is real. Its not science, Ove just tells stories .. but you think it is OK because he cares?
Phil the fence rusher in full cry!
At least with Phil Done we had the inbuilt counterbalance of the Spoonerism
Jen – you’ll say anything to prove the reef has no problems. Tim Lambert has given you a quite acceptable mechanism for this year. I have said above AGW is just starting relative to where it’s going; the rate of change is fast; there are ocean pH effects to consider. I think it’s quite reasonable to suggest it may be an issue.
And you’re quoting that wonderful independent source A. Bolt and some anon emailer. I wonder what Ove actually says in his reports and papers.
What was actually wrong with Ove’s press release – he quoted what he was seeing – and extrapolated from past events. Don Henry was the one going on about Kyoto.
Should we ask what ecosceptic Version I died of?
Jennifer it’s really quite idiotic of you to claim that we don’t worry if people make “ridiculous pronouncements” – why else do you think we hang out here in the torturous company of your fellow zealots, trying to counterbalance your empty headed posts?
The point that you missed, blinded by your own agenda, is that the science still stands and you haven’t shown otherwise. Ridiculous pronouncements aside, the science still points to many complex, interacting factors which amplified by AGW can degrade the GBR. I can’t comment on the study programme of the UQ, of which I know little, so why would you want me to? What science have you put forward to show that you’re not just telling stories too?
Jennifer, despite being a self-proclaimed environmental scientist and a Dr, you rarely, if ever, engage on the science yourself. Instead you focus on mud-slinging allegations and spinning tabloid angles. If you want to rubbish the dire warnings about the GBR and criticise another scientist for ridiculous pronouncements, and perhaps you have a valid basis for doing so, but where is your scientific information that shows you are putting forward any other than an opinionated idiculous pronouncement yourself? At least I made a quick attempt above to mention some of the scientific issues I was aware of (ie not as straightforward as Bolt would have one believe) yet you dismiss them. Don’t they fit with your own ridiculous pronouncements?
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/wwftext.htm
and
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/Review55-1%20Deciet%20in%20the%20name%20of%20conservation.pdf
should get you started Thinksi/Pinxi.
But this post was mostly in response to readers of this blog outraged by Ove and his comments and who sent me emails asking I post the recent piece by Andrew Bolt.
PS I’ve posted these papers for you before – I think.
I doubt Pinxi, Phil or Tim will actually read my scholarly pieces – I reckon they are most interested when I provide text from tabloids? 🙂
Jennifer, whatever you do, don’t mention DDT as he’s run out of anti-anxiety tabs for the eve.
Jennifer I don’t recall you linking to these before, but I encourage you to link to such sources/articles whenever you can. The 1st one is interesting reading, and it shows that WWF didn’t provide sources to substantiate certain claims, but it doesn’t build a case to disprove their claims.
I’m dismayed to discover that the now discredited crank Ove had a hand in the many of the papers that I read earlier on this topic, even if they seemed like well-balanced reports to me at the time.
“The link between increased greenhouse gases, climate change, and regional-scale bleaching of corals, considered dubious by many reef researchers only 10 to 20 years ago (8), is now incontrovertible (9,10). Moreover, future changes in ocean chemistry due to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide may cause weakening of coral skeletons and reduce the accretion of reefs, especially at higher latitudes (11). The frequency and intensity of hurricanes (tropical cyclones, typhoons) may also increase in some regions, leading to a shorter time for recovery between recurrences (10). The most pressing impact of climate change, however, is episodes of coral bleaching and disease that have already increased greatly in frequency and magnitude over the past 30 years (9-14).”
Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs , Hughes, T. P., et al Science, 00368075, 8/15/2003, Vol. 301, Issue 5635
“Sea surface temperatures in many tropical regions have increased by almost 1 C over the past 100 years (some tropical seas up to 2 C) and are currently increasing ~ 1–2 C per century (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). In the Great Barrier Reef, sea surface temperatures have increased 0.46 C per century in the north to 2.59 C per century in the waters off Townsville. Sea surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef in early 1998 were the warmest in the past 95 years of instrumental record (Lough 2000) and were associated with significant coral bleaching”.
“…These authors concluded that global warming is a more likely explanation for the observed trends than natural decadal-scale variability, although
others (e.g. Allan & D’Arrigo 1999) have questioned this interpretation.”
Since the late 1970s there has been a global increase in the number and scale of coral-bleaching events and the extent, timing and severity of many such events have been correlated with warmer than normal seawater temperatures (Jones et al. 1997; Lough 2000). In 1998, tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest on record, topping off a 50-year trend for some tropical oceans (Reaser et al. 2000). In the same year, coral reefs around the world suffered the most extensive and severe bleaching on record. The mortalities that followed these events were higher than any in the previous 3000 years (Aronson et al. 2002). The geographic extent, increasing frequency, and regional severity of mass bleaching events are an apparent result of a steadily rising baseline of marine temperatures, combined with regionally specific El Niño and La Niña events (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999; Lough 2000).
Austral Ecology (2003) 28, 423–443
Climate change and Australia: Trends, projections and impacts LESLEY HUGHES
“..What is particularly interesting about this infectious disease is its temperature dependence. Infection of the coral Pocillopora damicornis with V. coralyticus at a temperature of 27∞C or higher caused rapid lysis of coral tissue, whereas at 25∞C, the corals bleached and, at temperatures below 24∞C, no lysis occurred. Similar to several other pathogenic marine Vibrio spp., V. coralyticus produces a potent extracellular proteinase (M. Zicherman-Keren and Y. Ben-Haim, unpublished data), which may play a role in coral tissue lysis. This proteinase is expressed at much higher levels at 27∞C than at 25∞C. ..
.. Little is known about environmental factors
that affect the infection and progression of the diseases, transmission mechanisms and possible development of resistance. What is known is that most coral diseases occur at higher-than-normal sea-water temperatures. As temperatures are expected to rise considerably during the next few decades, it is likely that coral diseases will
become more prevalent. .. ”
Microbial diseases of corals and global warming
Eugene Rosenberg* and Yael Ben-Haim
Environmental Microbiology (2002) 4(6), 318–326
“The key difference between the 1998 and
2002 bleaching events on the GBR lies not in
the intensity of the SST anomaly that caused
each event,but in the proximity of the anomaly’s
epicenter to the GBR.The fact that the 1998
bleaching occurred during a strong El Niño
and the 2002 event occurred outside an El
Niño may be an important factor in the position
of this epicenter.The correlation between
SST variability on the GBR and climatic events
such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation need further investigation.The relationship between bleaching in the GBR and other relevant environmental parameters also need to be investigated to better understand potential
cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, it
is known that factors such as light, turbidity,
salinity, pollution, etc. also cause stress and can lead to bleaching in certain circumstances
[Reaser et al., 2000].
SST trends from satellite and in-situ techniques
are providing scientists with the tools to help
understand the role of climate change on
coral bleaching frequency and intensity over
the GBR.”
Remote Sensing of Sea Surface Temperatures During 2002 Barrier Reef Coral Bleaching
Eos,Vol. 84, No. 15, 15 April 2003
“habitat specialists will be the first species lost from coral reefs because their small populations suffer the most from human-induced disturbances”
Habitat loss, resource specialization, and extinction on coral reefs
philip.munday@jcu.edu.auSource:Global Change Biology; Oct2004, Vol. 10 Issue 10, p1642
Sorry Jennifer I overlooked your snide, immature remark “I doubt Pinxi, Phil or Tim will actually read my scholarly pieces” because ironically, I was busy reading your referenced ‘pieces’ and responding as per above. In return, I now consider you indebted to remove your foot from your mouth and attempt an intelligent response.
A further comment that you’ve now invited:
your self-proclaimed “scholarly pieces” linked to above are attacks on environmental groups (relying heavily on the input of others) and attacks on supporting govt policies moreso than stand alone quality scholarly works, so if you’re attempting to portray them as such then we can only conclude this confusion may be in part responsible for the tabloid quality of your own posts.
jennifer have you invited Ove to comment?
Yes yes Jen – we do read the stuff you suggest (that’s your problem – unlike Joe we take homework home) – previously read – but this is the water quality argument in the main – we’re talking, bleaching post 2002 and the possibly in future here from AGW and from less alkaline oceans.
And scholarly – we’d have to get the red ink on all that political comment and erase that for scholarly (OK – don’t bite !). Incidentally did you discuss the increase in sedimentation post-European?
Joe stop grovelling to “teach” coz you like her photo; and where’s that bloody palladium analysis ! You promised.
I own some spot palladium, seriously. What paladium analysis are you tlaking about, Phil?
blogs, papers, posts, text from tabloids, columnist for hire, scholarly pieces, antics, the point???
What say we ask a reef tourist or an estate agent in Innisfail for their view on AGW science and skeptics.
Phil,
David Barnes from AIMs has published the serious stuff on corals and the impact of warming and co2. His work suggests corals like both.
As regards Ove and his stories, well I reckon Andrew Bolt has written enough.
But if Bolt has got something wrong – tell us about it?
this one for joe; ever played with Santobrite?
Tell us about it? You’re not genuinely interested in the science Jen, only the spin angles. You could prove me wrong by addressing the science, the same science that you’d rather ignore to push your well-funded agenda that businesses and agriculture aren’t harming the reef. Offering up a balanced perspective on science or business on this blog is a waste of valuable time (eg that could be spent talking to local reef divers and lifetime fishermen, could possibly even get more sense from a green turtle).
Jen – I said Bolt on any of his previous AGW rants in newspapers for porkies. Shows he has a vendetta or significant bias!
In this rant above he has not cited any substantive material. It’s a greenie bashing rhetorical puff piece for the cheer squad who like that sort of thing. Like Rog. (ra ra ra rah!)
He has not taken the cyclones into account as per Tim Lambert’s post on cooling of the waters.
Bugga
I’m lucky to be able to spell Palladium (sometimes missing one L) let alone messing about with Santobrite. What is it anyway?
My rule is if you can’t get out in a few seconds don’t trade it.
Truth is first time in pallady because I was to gutless to buy gold or silver at these heady heights so I went to the poor man’s gold. Pallady is doing real well.
In 1972 in a bay near Gladstone, a 60 year old Queensland fisherman, who had not made it past 6Th grade, told me that the brown, & yellow scum, floating on the water, was coral spore.
He then went on to explain to me that coral released their spore on one day each year.
Can you imagine my amazement, when over 10 years later marine researchers announced that THEY had discovered this phenomena. It had not occurred to me that they did not know. Perhaps they had talked to some fisherman.
They continue to amaze me with their pronouncements.
I would like to hear their explanation of,
1/ How the same corrals thrive in the Red Sea, which averages 3 degrees C hotter than the reef waters, if 1 degree C will bleach, & kill ours?
2/ Why is it the southern areas which suffer the most bleaching, when these are cooler?
3/ Why is not the reef moving south, into cooler waters, if temperature is the problem?
4/ Have they looked at the variation in salinity as a cause? It is the cause of lagoons inside fringing reefs in many areas.
Hasbeen
I love discussions like this. The notion that humans are in control of the forces of nature is quite amusing. So is the notion that nature’s complexities are beyond our comprehension but we’re still responsible. So, too, is Pinxi’s “I don’t understand it but at least I’m politically correct about it” attitude.
Schiller.
Calling me PC has to be the least fitting accusation ever. I don’t understand it but I’m PC? What BS. I made the effort to read widely in the science pertaining to the corals and climate change – which of the armchair debaters here can claim the same?
Connect the dots Schiller: I quoted (quickly) from some papers because the alleged scholarly piece of Jennifer and lobby group colleague claims a lack of science to substantiate links between climate change and coral reef degradation. Consequently I’ve invited Jennifer to respond with some solid science. Alternatively she could simply admit to shovelling loads of horse shit again because the IPA party line says that business and agricultural activities do not damage the GBR or any other aspect of the environment (unless and until those same corporate sponsors see a profit making opportunity in developing a solution to the previously denied problems).
Of course Schiller you haven’t added anything of substance to this thread so we’re safe to ignore your backyard chicken gut divinations. It’s clear that you reject all science and practical observations that conflict with your denial that humans should be accountable for any impact their actions have. Your arguments are always ‘what environmental damage?’ followed by ‘yeah but humans are part of nature too so therefore it’s all natural and ok for us to do whatever we want’.
Hmmmmm, on connecting the dots neither Pixie
07:41 PM
09:26 PM
09:43 PM
10:30 PM
10:37 PM
10:38 PM
11:04 PM
11:13 PM
02:25 AM
or Peedone
02:23 PM
03:17 PM
06:12 PM
06:13 PM
07:25 PM
08:41 PM
09:13 PM
09:17 PM
10:41 PM
11:20 PM
11:34 PM
seem to have much else to do (let me know if I missed any won’t you).
oooo – who’s done his nana then. What’s the matter Rodgy-Podge – feeling a bit out-argued so you’re cranking up the personal abuse. You should come and visit us Nursery Boy – Pinx is in the next ward. We need some friends.
Wrong reading, Phil. Ecosceptics alive, well and growing in number
Here’s an introduction to the work of David Barnes:
http://www.aims.gov.au/news/pages/news-990625.html
All my scientific papers by Barnes are hard copy. He’s published in easily accessible journals – maybe visit a library.
What I’ve learnt from this thread is that some commentators can’t evaluate a couple of pieces of evidence on their own merits.
They have to look for a motivation or be dismissive on the basis of hearsay – whether relevant or not to the piece of evidence at hand.
They seem incapable of taking a straight forward and logical approach. .. then again maybe they are just here to play politics?
” then again maybe they are just here to play politics” – Jeepers creepers – we could seriously say the same about your assertions. Hearsay is exactly what you’re doing here ! Bolt as a source – Come On !
No Jen – it’s not simply about us evaluating evidence on its merits. You’ve picked a blue with no evidence presented except was you assert is self-evident and from Andrew Bolt’s column. And you’re very hesitant to back it up.
And the Barnes article is saying “it’s a debate”. Of course it’s a debate. Debates normally involve pro and anti cases reasonably put.
Would you be necessarily expecting major responses at this level of CO2 rise? How fast did rises happen in the past? Can the reef cope with the pace of change versus geological change.
Clearly we have a major international class biological asset in good condition – a source of mega tourism dollars – and surely we’d like to keep it that way given it’s on our watch to look after it.
Maybe the reef will cope. Maybe it will have problems. But surely the research is well worth doing. That’s one of the reasons AIMS is there.
Phil, In your first comment on this thread you asked ‘And who the hell is Ove [Hoegh Guldberg] anyway? Just because some UQ guy throws a wobbley this is of some pith and moment.’
This is from the IPCC TAR, Contribution of WGII, Chapter 6:
‘In the past these local factors, together with episodic natural events such as storms, were regarded as the primary cause of degradation of coral reefs. Now, Brown (1997), Hoegh-Guldberg (1999), and Wilkinson (1999), for instance, invoke global factors, including global climate change, as a cause of coral reef degradation.’
The list of references identifies the H-G paper as follows:
‘Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50, 839-866.’
In the same Report, Chapter 9 on Australia and New Zealand, H-G gets two references:
‘Mass bleaching has occurred on several occasions in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and elsewhere since the 1970s (Glynn, 1993; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1997; Wilkinson, 1998).. Although warming in Australia’s coral reef regions on average is expected to be slightly less than the global average, according to the SRES global warming scenarios it may be in the range of 2-5
Jennifer; any direction in our science is not your exclusive zone to control and nobody appointed you as chief judge from within this or that science fraternity. However I can respect your ability as a hired writer like any other pro journo if can accept that. But your ability to control our media from a collaboration of out back papers from red neck country will be challenged every which way while you run their anti “green” campaigns.
The fact you can’t see AGW is not so important however your apparent determination to stop others is. The fact we can’t see exactly what is going on round the earth yet is no excuse to crack down on the various branches of research that may be struggling to get a handle on it for us. By downgrading their results you cut off their influence in obtaining more funds. CSIRO is now critically short of practical people at the grass roots. Is that what your IPA program is all about?
I think not. You may be setting their goals in your crusade to maintain a job at the helm of the most conservative ship in the country. Its not science Jennifer, its politics and I say that as a veteran campaigner in our struggle for control of this environment.
Before any one else bothers to chalk up “another green” my dinghy’s wake is almost straight down the middle in this fine democracy. There is no smoke screen either.
If you take past pronouncements at face value you would have good reason for concern eg
“.. I would say that that is no longer an issue of debate. This is a fact. Coral bleaching is triggered by a small increase above the summer maximum temperatures in regions that are affected.”
“..It really is I think 100% predictable. We are releasing this model at the end of this month for scrutiny by atmospheric scientists and other biologists but we were astounded and also depressed.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s27282.htm
But when the same person reverses that 100% prediction you would be justified in being sceptical of future claims.
buggga, i’ve no training as a pro journo, and never worked as one. my training is as a scientist, and i’ve worked as one.
ps have you ever reflected on what sort of person would hide behind a pen name, while throwing insults at real people based on misinformation?
What would be really interesting to know is whether Rog personally thinks there is any concern or is he convinced there is 100% no need for concern.
So in all these discussions it’s really so depressing that we’re often discussing or presenting personalities and not the issues.
Oh no! Not the ‘pen name’ debate again!
Bleaching events result from extended periods of calm weather during which mixing from wave action ceases and surface water becomes exceptionally warm. Such warming is especially marked in very shallow water such as on reef flats. At the same time the absence of waves also eliminates the wave driven currents that normally flush the reef top. Bleaching conditions require at least a week or more of calm weather to develop and this may happen every few years, only once in a century, or never, depending on geographic location. On the outer GBR it is uncommon due to ocean swell and currents even in calm weather. In the mid-shelf and inshore areas it is much more common due to the absence of swell and reduced currents.
Characteristic bleaching scars and isotope temperature records from coral cores commonly show evidence of past bleaching events going back thousands of years. There is no evidence for a recent increase in frequency and/or severity of bleaching events and nothing to link extended periods of calm winds with GW.
In past geologic periods when global climate was warmer than at present corals enjoyed greater latitudinal distribution. The most likely effect of a warming climate on reefs would seem to be an expansion of their geographic distribution and there is some evidence this is already happening. In Florida recent growth of coral has occurred farther north than it did a few decades ago and in the same areas sub-fossil corals indicate previous such advances in the recent geologic past.
Hoegh-Guldberg has found an attractive GW niche in the well established guild of GBR doomscryers. It has provided notoriety, acclaim and generous research support. Whether his prophesies will stand up to the reality test remains to be seen. Based on the track record of science based doomscrying his odds don’t look too good. In fact sheep’s entrails and tea leaves seem to produce better results, probably because they at least incorporate some element of intuitive judgment.
Jennifer; as one real person to another, I think you write well enough to convince a lot of others you’ve got all this science by the balls.
Cheers!
Gavin
Walter; a lot of modern day scientists are very vocal in their drive for funds. These days they have to be, since they must be seen in light of outcomes others want.
So let me get this straight; the good professor reports 3 months ago that 60% of the GBR was at risk due to AGW.
He then visits the reef and discovers it’s much less – by a not insignificant magnitude.
His explanantion is that a couple of cyclones at the end of summer prevented this happening.
So the warming and bleaching were all going to occur within a three week period?
Isn’t it blindingly obvious that he exaggerated enormously in a major newspaper and has been caught out?
Why does it matter that it was Bolt that blew the whistle?
Jim
Jim
No offense, but that question is the dumbest, inappropriate question I have seen in a long time. Actually it’s not but allow me the liberty of rhetoric.
It is not important what was is said to the left. It is more important who said it.
Look at Lambert and Quiggin as two perfect examples of hard left campus trolls with too much time on their hands (paid for by the taxpayer). As Jennifer pointed out recently these two knuckleheads are masters at the “art” of personal attack.
What she meant was they simply try to rip pieces of flesh out people’s bodies who don’t agree with their narrow hard left campus troll views.
One is a political scientist and the other is a website design teacher. Both are as qualified to speak about AGW as I am about women’s underwear.
That’s all.
Ps Sorry about the first sentence as it meant to be ironic.
Realised that Joe!!
I might also add Joe that I don’t know Lambert and have never visited his site.
I don’t read Quiggin anymore – I once found his site extremely interesting and informative but I do share your view that it’s a uniform sing-a-long at his place now , outsiders aren’t welcome and I’m not a member of the choir!
Jennifer if you’re trained as a scientist, then please try to write like one. Your posts are mostly political and focus on criticisms of scientific and strategic work that rubs against your own agenda. You rarely engage in the science yourself, you haven’t responded on the scientific issues raised above and it’s clear from experience that you won’t. Your work is political, that’s very very clear. You’re not genuinely interested in the science, otherwise your so-called scholarly pieces would attempt to consider the science in a balanced way. Politics politics.
I guess Pinxi you’re on every website that carries the same views as yours complaining that they use too litle science as well, right?
which are they? give me their URLs pls joe. (we know you don’t let facts get in the way of your AGW beliefs)
No Pinxi, It’s the reverse.
I would the expect URLS from you if indeed you are so attached to science. I would expect you to show us which blogs etc. you have criticised for not keeping to the same standards you expect from Jennifer. Show tell us the URLs.
Pinxi said:
(we know you don’t let facts get in the way of your AGW beliefs)
I says
we know you don’t let facts get in the way of your AGW beliefs
joe the point is that Jennifer is claiming to write as a scientist but she doesn’t address the science, preferring to cite attacks on the science of others that she disagrees with. if you want facts and science, check out the articles i referenced above
joe it’s worthwhile repeating my sentence from above: “I made the effort to read widely in the science pertaining to the corals and climate change – which of the armchair debaters here can claim the same?” You’ve just proved my point. this is the last reply you’ll get.
On Andrew Bolt, the Crikey team had this to say:
Just why Rupert Murdoch allows or directs his attack-dogs to ridicule the idea that climate change is an unfolding global calamity – his flagship The Australian usually leads the charge, followed by several columnists – isn’t hard to understand. It’s about money and you get to kick the liberals in the process. But if he ever becomes convinced that the climate problem is real, or that it is crazy not to take precautions in case it’s real, there will be some very sour attack-dogs wandering around without red meat.
Pinxi
Jennifer is a scientist, however she is doing us all a service by combing through stuff that we all be interested in. That’s why were’re both here.
However no one should expect her to critque the science she is reporting on as though she was doing peer review. No one expects that from her. So I don’t think I am being unreasonable.
To be honest, I can’t pick what Jennifer’s take on climate science is. One day she she may seem like a sceptic and then she presents another piece that looks the opposite.
What I think she’s doing is presenting us with she thinks is both good science and stuff that may be obviously suspect and letting us comment.
There’s nothing wrong with doing that and I think she is doing a fair job. She’s isn’t doctinaire and therefore you ought to appreciate that. That’s all I’m trying to convey and not attempting to sound harsh on you and sorry it may have come across that way.
Thanks.
Pinxi
But it’s silly to come up with Crikey and use that site to attack Bolt and Murdoch because Crikey certinly doesn’t have any more credibility on this issue than Bolt. Crikey people ,last time I looked, are scibes and most are probably second rate because if they were any good they would be at the big dailies. Obviously there may be exceptions to the rule but its a good explanation for most of the people there.
The point is that a lot of people have doubts about climate science like I do for many reasons. My biggest concern is a lot of the stuff that comes out may be tainted by the money angle. Let’s face it a lot of government funding is heading to these univeristy departments as a result of AGW concerns. People being people may not want to see research dollars diseppear if there wasn’t a problem.
As I am not a scientist I can’t pick through the data to figure it all out. The problem I also see is these research guys are not putting their source data out in the public domain so their findings could be checked. This is wrong especially when so much money is a stake.
In other words why should I trust anyone with my money who isn’t open and allowing sourcs code to go up on the web.
Look at the attempted roasting of Bob Carter’s obvservation recently! Carter made the perfectly accuarate point that global temps have not gone up since 1998. That’s true, however people were trashing him as though he was lying.
This is the sort of thing that really worries me about this issue. There seems to be no honesty becaause people may be worried about the moeny angle, have a sense that they can’t rock the boat or are pulling a lie on us for political reasons.
There is too much money at stake for this information not to be 100% verifiable. My view is that any public funded AGW research ought to be audited before it goes out.
That’s all.
ok joe, but if you are reading the debates and the alternative sources that get posted you should have noticed some patterns:
Jennifer regularly and predominantly posts on issues in a one-sided way and spins angles that are consistent with the pro-corporate sponsors IPA party line (if you’re unsure of this I sincerely suggest you read more widely eg from scientists and lobby strategists who disagree with Jennifer [but don’t ask me for urls as I tend to search and read far and wide and talk to real people – on both sides])
Despite claiming to write as a scientist, Jennifer rarely engages directly in the science and certainly not in a balanced way. Even the so-called scholarly piece was not a work of science but an attack on environmental groups. Instead of addressing the science, Jennifer typically just quotes others who are usually criticising the scientific or strategic work of others’ (eg quoting that Herald columnist!) and leaves it to others to do further research. Hence there are often several layers of opinion repeated.
When questioned on the science or asked to justify opinionated claims, Jennifer rarely produces the goods to show that she’s putting forward a well-considered opinion. (I say that sincerely as I consider it a crying shame that a more open and balanced debate for a learning outcome can’t take place on this blog with all the valuable experience of the commenters. I’ve said before that I think Jennifer misses a great opportunity to set the stage for learning exchanges, Steve made a similar remark today about the tone with which Jennifer sets the example here. This blog unfortunately is a prime example of the kind of single-view political game-playing that prevents the various stakeholders in an issue from coming together to work out the optimal solution – hence this blog is indicative of the problem).
Some of the ‘other side of the fence’ stuff that Jennifer posts is sent to her by readers, some of it may clearly interest her, some of it relates to issues that have been fought so fiercely at this blog that Jennifer has come to appreciate some of the other side’s arguments, because she knows it will stimulate more debate that’s good for blog publicity, and because knows she will get fierce criticism if she ignores it.
joe Crikey writers are big on independent media and democracy. They don’t want to be repressed hacks at the big mass-produced dailies. They often give a voice to both sides of an issue as their comments section plus rights-of-reply approach lets you hear opposing opinions – a kind of informed discussion that never happens in mainstream media.
re: yr concerns on the money angle – this applies to corporations, political party donations, farming groups, well-heeled church groups, corporate funded lobby groups and university employed sceptics too as you know, so don’t be selective with those concerns.
I think we’d all like to see more transparency in research agendas and more accessible research results.
Pinxi
Are you sure about corporations lying? The only thing I see is these CEO dittoheads falling over themselves to get on the AGW bandwagon.
The one I like is David Morgan from Westpac. This is the guy who is building himself a palace sized spread outside of Sydney, which will probably need a year’s Bass Strait production to
heat the place and enough electricity to run Sydney and he’s telling us we have a problem.
I really don’t see where these corps or CEOs are playing around with this stuff.
Quite honestly if there is dishonesty I see it coming more from the Uni research departments trying to glomm more dollars.
So this corp stuff is really becoming passé.
If Jennifer is presenting alternative views it’s because very few people are as most are trolling around trying to scare people.
We ought to be thankful she isn’t part of the clique and spending time to collate and post it.
Pinxi, and I’m not trying to be rude (believe me) but you don’t have to read it.
If I hadn’t read it here I would have thought I wouldn’t have known that Carters comments were valid.
Crikey writers are big on independent media and democracy.
When I read something like this it usually means they are to the left of the Guardian
joe mate you’re blowing smoke rings. You’re here to hear what you want to hear, block out the rest
Joe was right on with “There is too much money at stake for this information not to be 100% verifiable. My view is that any public funded AGW research ought to be audited before it goes out”. Joe I’m sure it is audited by the right people but plenty of others can’t handle that.
Joe: there are some simple tests we can all do to pick up on what’s happening both short and long term and it’s not about asking other climate scientists or this blog.
However this blog serves us well in looking through all the complexities involved with reading change in natural events.
Joe; the best model of all these complexities is the earth itself but science is flat out catching up with too many questions about the evidence of this or that. No one branch of science can see the big picture straight up.
The problem as Joe pointed out in analyzing any large batch of raw data is at the front end. It starts with the basic design of the model, but more importantly includes major shortcomings beyond the final transducer, the observer!
Fearless:
Joe I’m sure it is audited by the right people but plenty of others can’t handle that.
Not really. Some of it is peer reviewed, which io don’t think is enough. Peer review in this area allows for potential conflict of interest. I’m talking about an audit and also requiring that ALL public funded research into this area must publish source coding etc. on the web.
We saw what happened with the hickey stick shambles.
Joe – “ALL public funded research into this area must publish source coding etc. on the web.”
Does that mean that the researcher has to publish MS Windows, C++ or VB code if he/she used it? What about if the code was developed in the researchers own time – he/she then owns the intellectual property. What if the quest for disclosure is an attempt to unlock someone elses code?
MBH98 has been available on the web from day 1.
Just a point – you may wish to expand your research – if you do bother to do basic background research before you make comments?
One important point to consider in your article – the difference between seawater (ocean) temperature and atmopheric (air) tempertaure. Changes in air
temperature slightly different, altough important early indicator of change. Increasing the oceans temperature is somehwat different, and means alot to the marine organisms that exist within the ocean.
A second important point on researching articles and keeping up to date on current affairs that are reported within the news, if not able to keep up to date on the scientific literature. This report was within mainstream media last month on what is happening worldwide on corals reefs, which is not the healthy and no -impact that the lack of research by Andrew Bolt “reported” on…
see weblink to CNN report:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html
I know it is a strange idea – but maybe considering research and gathering corect background information may be a goodstarting point for accurate reporting???
Ender
Read what I said. If the research is public funded!!
That means if the researcher salary, or work is supported by public funds that work ought to be in the public domain. If they don’t wish to do that, they shouldn’t be given any money.
I don’t accept your argument that they own the intellectual property either. I am not suggesting people steal it, after all do peer reviewers steal other people’s work?
I they accept public funding even their underwear ought to publicly displayed.
Ender says:
“Does that mean that the researcher has to publish MS Windows, C++ or VB code if he/she used it?”
The funder should decide!
joe – so if the funder decided that the MS Windows code should be released then Microsoft would just do it – riiiiiiiiight!
So who owns the IP if the researcher did the work in their own time? Also all the auditor code would have to be disclosed so obviously the auditors should make underwear dislays as well.
joe – “Read what I said. If the research is public funded!!”
Some labs accept public and private donations. How do you seperate the public and private IP. If a large corporation makes donations to a lab then they would expect to own the IP – does the corporation have to disclose everything?
Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal article, which decsribes what I am talking about.
By: M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Posted incrrectly on another thread
Ender
It can be done. So please stop pretending otherwise.
Ender says
So who owns the IP if the researcher did the work in their own time? Also all the auditor code would have to be disclosed so obviously the auditors should make underwear dislays as well.
Me says
Well gee ender, how do Bell lab scientists separate what they do in their garage and what’s done at the labs?
And Lindzen is full of it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
Yes Johnboy, of course he is. After all his only claim to fame is a professorship at MIT. Last time I looked MIT needed and entry score of 1500/1600 SAT and there are more than a few perfect scores.
Oh, and there are no proponents of AGW who aren’t full of it, right?
Johnboy
thanks for the link
So far I did not read one single refutation of this professor’s piece. Yes, there were lots of ad homs etc, but not one refutation.
I guess MIT does still carry some weight.
I wonder if joe ever poked his head into a government department and asked them a brief question beyond the front desk.
Fearful
That’s about the stupidest comment I’ve seen at this site.
any respose to the MIT guy’s piece? Don’t attack me, refute him.
Lindzen
Iris : doesn’t work, so leaves a big credibility issue.
No conspiracy : most of the climate change research is about resolving unknowns.
Given he is in residence at MIT gives him some credibility, but it does not make him immune from analysis and peer review.
He is basically a prima donna.
Mr Joe you do not seem to be aware of the methods in which modern scientific research functions.
“Look in the Congressional record at Richard Lindzen’s funding sources…which he tried to hide even under oath (this is extremely unethical for a scientist)…one of his funding sources is a FOREIGN fossil fuels organization -OPEC(-Harpers Magazine- DEC. 1995.) In other words, Lindzen is unethical in the scientific community.”
Joe – I don’t know – your the one demanding full disclosure. As far as I know when I worked at IBM I signed a piece of paper that signed all IP done while I worked there to IBM.
That does not resolve the issue of mixed public/private research. If the code was developed with partly private money then then the company that sponsored the lab is well within its rights to claim the IP and block disclosure. This is routine in biotech where a lot of ‘secret’ science is done. Perhaps your shrill claims for full disclosure could extend to big pharma and biotech – how would that effect the stocks Mr Trader? A lot of biotech is done with public money or is based on research done in with public money.
johnboy
Can you refute anything he said in the piece. I’m not really interested in 60’s type criticism- big corps mean bad things.
What do you see that he has said that you can refute?
Ender
Stop playing silly games by comparing, looking at weather clouds as some sort of secret science, it isn’t.
Public funding ought to require more than peer review in climate research.
Quick solution to your self imposed ramp.
Demand that all public funded research in “cloud formation” has to be audited and put up on the public domain. Don’t like it. Don’t take funds.
Joe; have you ever been here?
http://www.nata.asn.au/index.cfm?objectid=923AFA79-65B1-96AB-75C3E4CC4C3A6247
Been to Europe many times Fearless, but not there.
Our problem joe; not all science is under this QA blanket
http://www.nata.asn.au/index.cfm?objectid=91A6633A-65B1-96AB-7EAF2879B94B08C3
Fearful
Are you trying to scare me with your linking abilities.
Try and focus, son.
Refute Mr. MIT’s piece. I would prefer point by point. And a, err, no ad homs.
But the list is long –
http://www.nata.asn.au/index.cfm?objectid=91A6633A-65B1-96AB-7EAF2879B94B08C3&parentCategory=Heat%20and%20Temperature%20Measurement&categoryLevel=2
Joe old mate; this stuff was my job
Mr Joe – I think you are most uninformed as to how scientific research is undertaken. In this specific field of climate there is abundant flow of information and data exchange. That’s how progress is made. How do you think you get your nightly weather report without that flow of data. Lindzen by the virtue of his own failure as a researcher is now complaining about the system. It’s just poor spoilt behaviour. Indeed the community has indulged his petulant behaviour for too long. He needs to attend to his own research.
Joe has to learn that like good engineering, science is built up on mutual trust over decades
Fearful says
like good engineering, science is built up on mutual trust over decades,
Me says
Yes, of course I agree. However with so much money involved in terms of potential carbon tax nonsense all this stuff that is publcly fund should be in the p[iblic domain.
You know, I’m amazed you guys a skirting this by sending me off to do homework through links.
“In this specific field of climate there is abundant flow of information and data exchange. That’s how progress is made.”
Well yes, but not exactly afrer Mann’s hockey stick was discreditedand it was peer reviewed, was it not? Mann refused to allow anyone access to his source coding. and for years we were conned into believing that crap.
Fearful, Jonnboy:
In you own words now, refue what the MIT professor has said. Don’t send me off to do homework, put up a point by point analysis- fisk him if you like- but tell us why he is wrong.
John says:
. Lindzen by the virtue of his own failure as a researcher is now complaining about the system.
Me says
John Boy
What I saw was a perfectly acceptable essay written by a guy with some pretty big credentials. This is MIT, dude! It isn’t Macquarie or UQ. It don’t get better than this. And if you’re a professor at MIT you are at the top of your dscipline. So stop swiping at him from a distance because the ad homs aren’t going to work when it comes to an Mit professor. Refute him. Try because at least its better than coming off like a sore loser. Take him on!
Joe equated “big on independent media and democracy” with “left of the Guardian”. Good that you recognise the fascist tendencies of the right joe, but democracy needs independent media and neither have to be a left or right domain.
FYI, Crikey regularly bashes the Greenies and has published Jennifer and even some bits from yr mate Louis. It’s not lefty at all. You should give em a try. The squatter edition is free and is guaranteed to broaden yr outlook.
Jennifer, as predicted, still has not responded on the scientific issues raised above, preferring to engage in mud-slinging only and not engage in credible science.
Pinxi
Will you please stop projecting like this, otherwise I’ll be forced to think that you are also trying to put words in my mouth.
I am now a fascist, nazi or what ever because I said that Crikey’s scibes were most probably a a bunch second raters compared to those working at the dailes. I also said that Fairfax is to the left of the Guardian on most issues. Sure the last comment was a little tongue in cheek,but now Pinxi is accusing me of sleeping with Hitler and I ain’t even gay let alone a Nazi.
Pinxi, I gunna put you on my knee and give you a huge spanking if you keep up this sort of nonsense.
Pinxi
Jennifer has gone away. Saving the world from ourselves or primarily from you can wait a few days can’t it?
She therefore can’t respond to your scientific request.
You didn’t mention Fairfax when you said left of the guardian. Will you settle for a simpler accusation that you talk lotsa smelly shit then? Now away with you – go sign up for yr squatter edition of Crikey and dont return until you’ve been reading it alongside yr daily coke.
Pinxi
In order to keep myself abreast of world events I read three papers each day. The tree version of the OZ, the Wall Street Journal (great paper, th best in the world) and the New York Sun, a recent paper and far superior to the NY Times.
I once tried Crikey, but to be honest I found it superficial and gossipy rather than newsworthy so i simply gave it a big shove. Give it up Pinxi and the save your hard earned dollars as there is nothing in there.
Oh, did I mention Fairfax? No, I didn’t that’s because I refuse to be brainwahed by people who belong in a sheltered workshop rather than a newsroom.
Try it. It could make you a much happier person in that you may start to think the wrold is not going to end next Thursday.
Thanks but I’m happy with my Pinky Workers’ Daily and a regular sidedose of the economist.
Ender,
Under the JORC guidelines, your arguments above fail.
So how do you now plead?
Joe
Excuse me sir – Mann’s “Hockey Stick” as you put it is far from disproven. You not be swayed by contrarian propoganda. It has been independently confirmed in a number of studies. The debate is well alive and far from finished for Dr Mann.
You address “homework” but it was you who first posted a URL link. This is most illogical to then complain about links. It is most efficient to post a link than reiterate the argument. I assume you Australians can read English.
You only see in the essay what you want – see what Mr David has said on the other AGW thread. The Iris effect – his great work – doesn’t work. He is just complaining. You should not be bluffed by residence at MIT – Stanford or Cornell would be more impressive. I don’t need to take him on – the literature has spoken. Complaining is all he now has left
Ok Johnboy
But can you refute anything he’s saying? That’s all I really want to know.
Joe – I have refuted in what I have provided above. He has provided a rhetorical piece with no references. His own centre piece of research, Iris, has shown to be flawed. I can paste some URL links but I feel you will not read them, so there is no point given you reject web links. Any formal logical debate with you is not possible.
Johnboy
It may very well be that his so-called iris work was flawed, however that’s still no refutation of what he has said.
Lots of good scientists get things wrong. My understanding of science is that a major part of the work can be trial and error and there is no shame in getting to the wrong conclusion. The shame is in covering it up.
There is enough back up evidence and accusations of bad behavior in the piece that could easily be corroberated. One example is the Al Gore attempt to use ABC’s Lateline (US version) as a trashing vehicle. These accusations are serious stuff.
Johnboy, stop turning this issue on its back by suggesting I don’t want to see evidence. What I said was that you ought to refute his piece in your own words not just provide links. I went to the reaclimate website you sent me to and all I found was ad homs. Out of 60 posts not one even attempted to refute the professor.
So be my guest. Refute him using your own words. Here’s your chance.
The problem for the proponents is that this guy is the real McCoy. Although you made light of MIT in an earlier post we all see that as a pretty lame slur because, quite simply MIT is the best science univeristy in the world. A dummy at MIT would be someone with an IQ of 130/140.
Joe
No – his major life’s work is flawed. So that’s that.
Al Gore is not a scientist. In comparison to the contrarian and denialist side of the global warming debate, the affirmative climate scientists have performed almost flawlessly. There really is no comparison.
And many of those 60 posts did severely question much of what the professor is saying. If you cannot understand that you are being most illogical and stubborn.
The professor has provided no evidence or statistics to support his biased accusations. It’s opinion.
So you’re prepared to listen to someone who gets major pieces of science wrong? Just because they’re in residence at MIT?
Johnboy
Ok that’s fine. It’s not problem you can’t refute his piece.
I am also surprised to see you trashing a senior professor from MIT whithout providing one shred of evidence other than he was wrong in one of his papers.
“The professor has provided no evidence or statistics to support his biased accusations. It’s opinion.”
Yes he has. He has informed us of several names of people who were trashed because they didn’t follow party line. He also told us of how difficult it was to get published in Scientific American despite the fact they trashed his paper without publishing it.
Johnboy, did you read his piece or are you simply winging it because you are sounding as though you haven’t a clue of what the article was about. You didn’t even read it, it seems.
Joe
This is the last I will say on the matter. I have read his piece – you have not. The piece does not mention the popular magazine “Scientific American”. It does mention Science – the prestigious scientific journal. Therefore I cannot believe you have yourself read the material and you are therefore being a pugilistic troll.
What is wrong with his papers is his Iris hypothesis. That’s why he is being refused publication. It’s wrong ! Do you not understand fool.
You is sure dumb.
Johnnyboy
I’m not dumb, you are
look you predantic goofball, making reference to Scientific American instead Science hardly reaches the stupid conclsuion you have. I brought the piece to the site and of course I would have read it.
His Iris hypothesis had not been criticisied at the time he took it to Science. They refused to go with it because it did not fit the party line. This is the only conclusion one can draw unless you have a more accurate time line to counter this.
Anyway, I notice again you have refused to refute the piece, which is further evidence that you are an idiot who just won’t shut up when confronted with stark reality.
Interesting that you sent people to realclimate hoping that ad homs would be enough to shut people down. It isn’t! Not only are you an idiot, but you are a disnhonst idiot to boot.
Refute the piece or otherswise take the lumps.
Oh, and if you think MIT is no just up there, please inform us where you went to university as I thought MIT was rated number one in the world of science Unis. Sour grapes?
Phil: Always keep your opponents off their pet topic like joe with his DDT
A thread or two back joe was lost on Santobrite, didn’t have a clue. Joe didn’t Google either it seems (where DDT is a pesticide, the other and its various trade names belong to a group of very long term fungicides).
Joe: This was about long term effects, observations and proper standards…….
Phil: There are a lot of contributors to the climate debate that haven’t got a handle on physics either; meantime they wait for some other goon to make their observations and interpretations.
Neil; When someone starts a thread with PhD, I go looking for a hammer literally, this relates partly to a time when a rather senior policeman reckoned I couldn’t sharpen a badly chipped axe on a bench grinder after a bushfire.
After working with an old fashioned blacksmith for a while you realize what academia misses. They can’t teach you how to wield a 14 pounded, round or over, bam, bam, bam!
Pinxi and Travis; an activist is someone we know who trusts we can both do better and tries to remain in themselves tireless, on and on.
Rog: A crusading hardliner goes way beyond and sometimes chills or burns on their way out.
bam bam
I really wish people knew what it is you’re trying to convey.
i guess it must my insight, somewhere, somehow you’re tring to convey this insightful understanding of some of the players on this thread.
My attempt wasn’t to keep people off topic about DDT. I attempted to pour some scorn over someone who deserves quite a bit of it. The DDT thing is simply a side issue.
If you had bothered to read between the lines you would have got it. However seeing you’re to busy analysing people’s motives etc. you miss lots of things that aimed at your head.
Joe – you are indeed trailer park trash from the colonies. My dear colonial buffoon, I cannot believe you are so uneducated as to not to even know the difference between Sci Am and Science.
Iris clearly did not meet the standards of serious science. Something obviously as varlet to which you would be unaccustomed.
I notce now the chaps at RealClimate have taken a more severe view of Mr Lindzen with a more detailed critique. I commend it to you, unless of course, you have a propensity to fits of uncontrolled behaviour, to which treatment with simian sedatives is contraindicated.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
Oh – one normally gets one’s education in a quality institution like Cambridge. But somehow I think yourself or your many random progeny are unlikely to ever attend. They have discerning taste and standards.
Are you, yourself, actually in employment, perhaps you are a shop keeper or on welfare?
Joey; one day you have to decide for yourself with your mate Lindzen and his stuff like this bit I grabbed from yes RC where they had it on toast.
1. If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature
differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less
difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical
storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion.
Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical
storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world
would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy
for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of
evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature
but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for
starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity,
not less — hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don’t have more scientists speaking up about
this junk science?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/#comment-11507
Now joey, you can believe me or not but that lot was crap based on my own practical experience where evaporation, due point, latent heat and dryness in artificial wet tropical conditions was our daily business. The only interpretation he probably got right was the models were suspect.
Warmer seas = stronger currents and more atmospheric energy in the form of large vortexes triggered by stronger updrafts.
Hotter lands = stronger drying winds, more bushfires, faster water runoff and more agricultural chemicals washed out to sea giving our coral reefs a good dash of slime.
Treating slime growth in hot wet humid conditions on weekly basis was our other job.
We used lots of acids, alkaline, organic mercury and plenty of Santobrite.
Can we move on?
1.Jonnyboy was that Cambridge with an education in the classics? I have heard their standards fell some time ago.
2.Nice question to ask strangers.
3. I’m still waiting for you to refute the piece in your own words instead of sending people to do homework. But I guess that would be too hard.
Try, I promise I won’t giggle.
Can we move on?
No; joey must see this former course info from the No 1 in engineering – MIT
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2006/teams/lele/climate.html
“Sixty-one current or former members of the MIT community have won the Nobel Prize
We are talking good physics here mate,
Cheers!
1. Johnnyboy, I’m not trailor park trash, you are. Tell me, are you one of those Brits with horribe teeth?
2. Bam Bam, Jonnyboy. It’s well and good putting stuff up from RC and trying to ad hom your way through. However other than hurling abuse at MIT, the professor and me (the messenger) neither of you have refuted what he has said in the piece published the WSJ.
Let me give you the definition of the word refutation straight from the dictionary… are you ready?
1.”Any evidence that helps to establish the falsity of something”
2.The act of determining that something is false
The definition gives Johnnyboy a starting point to go back to the piece I posted and refute it- provide eveidence that it is false.
Helpful hints>
1. going back to his work and telling us he was wrong is not really refuting what he has said in the WSJ. Moreover it looks more like a cop out.
2. attacking him and rubbishing me (and the Prof) is not really refuting the piece, is it.
So I guess you can’t do it and despite your alleged degree from a place of higher learning that has a good rep. you find this chore a little too hard.
By the way, most people would forgive an error in confusing two magazines that carry very similar names both reporting on the same topics. If that’s the only thing that set you off into abuse mode I would suggest that it is you needing medication for anxiety.
If you dont believe in global warming you are a self centered, resource destroyoing, capilitist idiot who will inevitably contibute nothing to this planet except co2
If you wish to read an unbiased opinion on climate change from a Nobel Laureate scientist (not a discredited journalist and an industry advocate), read Professor Peter Doherty’s article published today in the SMH. It can be found at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/wake-up-while-you-can/2006/05/05/1146335930448.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/wake-up-while-you-can/2006/05/05/1146335930448.html
Ian, Thanks for this. I note that Doherty also suggests we all read Jared Diamond’s book Collapse … yet it is full of errors, see http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=443 .
A strange comment given that Nobel Laureate scientist Doherty refers to Diamond’s book only once in passing (in four pages of text)! What relevance does your comment have with respect to the main content or message of Doherty’s brilliant and balanced piece? Nothing, I suspect, rather than a rather poor attempt at distraction maybe?
By the way, I don’t see the same quality of sources underpinning much of what you write above. Take the primary source in your original reef piece by the Andrew Bolt. Bolt, a journalist who is discredited by many is neither scientist nor reef expert yet you use him like the gold standard of factuality. Two different standards perhaps, or is this yet another case of good ole deception to support your paid position as an industry advocate?
Interestingly Bolt and I make reference to the evidence. Doherty seems to have to appeal to the ‘authority’ of others to support his position… in particular Lowe, Flannery and Diamond. Diamond got it wrong in his book – as I explain in the above link with reference to the evidence.
And you, Ian, seem to have to suggest someone is paying me to write what I write … is that because you have no credible argument?
Not at all. I haven’t started yet.
It would seem to me, however, that you don’t seem to vary your opinion even if there is overwhelming evidence is against the position you have taken. Let us explore your position on a topic to see how evidence based you are. I could pick water quality on the Great Barrier Reef or salinity in the Murray Darling (your “speciality” topics), but let’s pick climate change, seeing it seems on the ascendency among our brightest and most talented scientists (l’grand conspiracy). If they are all lying, then we need to expose them surely!
Let us take the position that you and Andrew Bolt have taken. You have stated in various ways that the science of climate change and its impacts on the biosphere and human society, is flawed and is a conspiracy by scientists to gain further funding. Some might say, ‘fair enough’. But to be fair, can you answer the following questions so I (we) can see that you are making your conclusions based on evidence and are fair dinkum.
First question: Could you restate for the record that you believe that climate change is a hoax and that the thousands of scientific studies that have been painstakingly done and published after anonymous review about climate change embody a conspiracy by scientists to gain further funding?
Second question: What is the evidence that you are using to come to these conclusions? You say that Andrew has pointed at the evidence – I am confused however. The more I look at the recent rant about the Queensland scientist and the Great Barrier Reef, the less I see what the evidence is that you and Andrew have based your conclusions on. Maybe I am missing something? So, here is the opportunity for us all – what is your hard evidence in this regard?
Thirdly, if the entire theory concerning climate change is supported by scientists who don’t believe it but are just doing so to get more grant money, then why are Diamond, Lowe, Flannery and Doherty (all celebrated scientists who are not longer running big labs and hence not in need of lots of research funding) still maintaining the conspiracy? Is this pride, is it greed, or is it just habit?
And, going back to l’grand conspiracy – what is the “glue” holding the broader conspiracy together? Why hasn’t anyone with a scientific publication record in climate change had a moral dilemma and come back from the “dark side”? Surely they could make lots of money saying that climate change is not true and we dont have to do anything anymore. I can think of a few of my business friends who would find such a ‘scientific’ conclusion useful.
You miss represent my position entirely. And its different from Andrew Bolts.
I acknowledge that Co2 levels are increasingly and that we should do something about it. But I repeatedly suggest that this is much more a problem for the Arctic than the Reef.
And what ever motivates Lowe and Diamond – my concern is that they have the detail plain wrong. They seem to not be concerned with the detail -they get their facts plain wrong.
You seem to be concerned more with what you think motivates individuals, and how relatively important you consider those individuals – than with the evidence.
But just because facts are ignored – well it doesn’t make them go away.
Yes – reading around your blog I see that is correct that you have not recently denied the existence or threat regarding climate change. Thank goodness for that – you have come up in my opinion as a result!
My interest in the motivations behind people comes from the observation of individuals who act as ‘hired guns’ for hidden industry groups. As a specialist on this type of behaviour during the ‘tobacco wars’, I have come to the conclusion that operating along these lines isn’t fair, useful or legal.
By the way, how are you funded (meant as an innocent question) or are you independently wealthy?
Ian, I fund this blog myself. And its clear from my website who I work for, even where i was born.
… but my interest ultimately is in the evidence and the argument.
But, you, well, your interest is in what motivates others, while declaring nothing about yourself?