AN Adelaide professor says scientists must do more to stand up to “anti-intellectual” climate change deniers, by explaining the difference between good science and spin.
University of Adelaide Professor Barry Brook, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, said in climate science and policy there were still a few apparently well-educated people who continued to deny the vast body of scientific knowledge and analysis.
The original Australasian Science article is here:
The Adelaide Now article is here.
Professor Brook feels the need to quote alarmist blogger Joe Romm who has recently made science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr the focus of repeated attacks, calling him a ‘delayer.’
Of ‘deniers’ he said, “They are hard to pin down because they don’t want a serious scientific debate.”
That’s odd – I thought the debate was over. He also stoops to the tired old tobacco and oil smears.
I think I’d sum up Professor Brook’s article as lacking substance and a severe case of ‘pot calling the kettle black.’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
In the lead article cited in this thread we have underneath a picture of the author the following caption:
“Barry Brook’s principal research is on
reducing extinctions and mitigating the
worst ravages of global change.”
The phrase “reducing extinctions” means precisely what?
I see that the Brooks article is subtitled, making sure the public knows the diffence between good science and denialist spin.
I would have thought that also applied to ensuring the public knows when crap science is being dressed up as alarmist spin.
Of course with Brooks being tied in with the Rann Government he might also like to explain why we should make mince meat of our economy to achieve a 0.000043Cpa reduction in temperature.
Paul,
This is probably a good answer to Professor Barry Brook.
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/green-advocates-failing-in-climate-debate/
See also website of John Ray/Greeniewatch.
It makes me want to vomit every time I hear the phrase “Climate Science” — when all it is, in reality, is the world’s longest and most expensive and counter-productive scavenger hunt.
“Climate Scientists” look in every garbage can, under every rock and rotting log for anything at all that they can hold up and scream: “Look! Look! Proof of warming!” Start with the conclusion – then look for something that can resemble a ‘fact’.
This is latest installment then, from the self-proclaimed “pro-intellectuals”? Stifle discussion? Silence dissent? Give me warming any day!
Ahhh… but there is more than one Brook leading to the sea Paul
“Longest NZ glacier shrinking 500m a year,
The Tasman Glacier – New Zealand’s longest – is retreating at the rate of more than 500 metres a year because of global warming, a scientist said.
Martin Brook said that the glacier, which sweeps past Mount Cook, the country’s highest peak, in the Southern Alps, was melting into a lake that began to form only 35 years ago and was now seven kilometres long and two kilometres wide”
http://news.theage.com.au/longest-nz-glacier-shrinking-500m-a-year/20080424-289z.html
“The pounding of storm waves on any shore creates vibrations in the earth that can be heard by seismometers and translated into storm power.
The archived seismological data now shows that this wave energy has been getting stronger for decades, matching what’s predicted to happen as the world’s oceans and air heat up
An analysis of decades of digital seismic data at 22 seismic stations worldwide shows that the power of most powerful storm waves is rising in every case”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/22/2224118.htm?site=science&topic=latest
Paul: Its about keeping up with the Times.
Oil smears? What, like Jen and the IPA being funded by Caltex, Esso, Shell and Woodside? (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs )
Arrghh, but them be tha facts, argghhhh!
March 24, 2008 FoxNews
“Ocean wave heights along the U.S. East Coast have progressively increased during the summer months — when hurricanes are most important to wave generation, a new study shows.
The study, detailed in a recent issue of the Journal of Coastal Research, analyzed measurements taken from three ocean buoys National Data Buoy Center located along the central U.S. Atlantic shore and one buoy in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1970s.
Initially, they had intended to study whether there had been increasing wave heights generated by nor’easters but found no significant change. Summer data, however, showed a different picture”.
09 April 2008
“SCOTLAND’S seas and coastline are facing a new series of threats because of rapid climate change, The Scotsman can reveal”.
April 17 “Ocean Salinity Evidence of Climate Change
Research shows there has been a drop in ocean salinity, suggesting ice around Antarctica is melting more rapidly. The diluted saltwater could alter ocean currents and further impact climate”. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
“March 24, 2008 FoxNews …” (of a report that was accepted over 6 months ago).
Just what is this meant to prove or support (if anything)?
See the full abstract at:
http://www.jcronline.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.2112%2F07-0894
And the conclusion:
“Examinations of the storms that have occurred since 1980 indicate that the most likely explanation for the progressive increase in wave heights has been an intensification of the hurricanes, with the increased numbers of hurricanes also having been a contributing factor.”
Well …duh!
If oil and tobacco influences views or peer reviewed science, then Government or other funding would have also an effect. Who would you suggest should fund alternative views that are essential in a democracy? It’s pretty clear where the $50 billion spent on climate research came from and where it went. And we have a single goverment funded body (IPCC) monopolising climate reports.
Is there only one glaicer in NZ? “The 1946 New Zealand Peace Stamp issue which commemorated the end of World War II, featured on its nine penny stamp the view of Franz Josef Glacier from the altar window of St James Anglican Church. This historic church was dedicated in 1931. By 1954 the glacier had retreated so that it was no longer visible from the church. The advance of the glacier brought it back into view in 1997.”
There is no rapid climate change in or around Scotland, which has the effect of ‘glacial bounce’ following the thawing of glaciers after the last great ice age. There is no established link between warming and hurricanes. ‘Antarctica melting more rapidly’ is nonsense. Notice all the weasel words could, maybe, might. None of which tells us what causes warming or cooling or various climate changes, particularly over short timescales, using short records.
Ahhh… but there is more than one Brook leading to the sea Paul
On this blog true perhaps beyond your knowledge King Canute
Just don’t hurt me, it’s all I’ll ask!
What a total scam.
“None of which tells us what causes warming or cooling or various climate changes, particularly over short timescales, using short records.”
(1) it’s cooling and there “may” (possibly – maybe but hell let’s not commit) be an (gulp) “ice age”
(2) but we can’t tell whether it’s warming or cooling coz the records are no good
(3) if any phenomena shows warming – it’s wrong as the record is too short (or hang on a tick – we’re working on a tortuous explanation)
(4) all climate models are flawed unless the models show us what we want – then we cite them
(5) and if anything does stack up – there’s no way to know anything ever so we’ll never ever know
(6) and if it did stack up it doesn’t matter anyway (but it won’t so 6 is just in case) – but it won’t so didn’t even need 6
(7) let’s rant on about the sanctity and philosophy of science and how proper science should be conducted – however any drivel from skeptics is worth quoting no matter how excremental it is – and NEVER criticize a skeptic – even if they’re totally stupid – as anything against AGW is worth supporting. Anything even if it’s stupid.
You hypocrites.
Barry Brook proves once again that if we fired 95% of academic “scientists” the only difference would be that there would be less money poured down the university funding rat hole.
If the Brooks comments are an example of his logical thinking abilities then he can be ignored.
On the one hand he is critical of those who express a sceptical view and on the other expresses a need for them to understand how science works.
I thought that science works by questioning and being sceptical.
In Brooks case he also is acknowedging that the sceptics are well educated, but obviously doesnt like it because they dont hold to his view of things.
Its not surprising then that he and Rann are in each others pockets is it.
It seems that the real reason we will be making mince meat out of our economy to achieve an almost zero result, is because of people like Brooks.
Professor Brooks reminds me this guy
Julian,
Could “this guy” be the (in)famous “Luke”?
Just asking!
Malcolm – it won’t be because of people like Brooks, it will be because of people like Luke.
The more people who clamour for a zero-emissions outcome, the more the politicians will have to pay attention to them — if for no other reason than to protect themselves from the really dangerous lunatic fringe Green/Left, who would push this (and more) onto everyone in a nanosecond.
Where people like Luke seem to miss the point is that the ‘skeptics’ don’t really care about the ‘warmers’ religious beliefs – they just don’t want them pushing this garbage onto everyone else and wrecking the economy and ruining their lives in the process.
If they want to set up their own Jonestown and live a zero-emissions, zero-enegy lifestyle – be my guest. Hell — I’ll even chip in for the Kool Aid.
Ivan – “protect themselves from the really dangerous lunatic fringe Green/Left”
However I would like to protect myself from the really really really dangerous lunatic fringe Brown/Right. Following the doctrine from the PNAC these disasterous policies actually HAVE wrecked the US economy with trillion dollar debts from oil wars. How is that prediction of $15 dollar a barrel oil after ‘liberating’ Iraq going BTW? (Oil USD$119 and rising)
As the USD sinks slowly in the west you do not need lunatic Greens/Left to stuff you up, your lunatic fringe has already done it. Mind you the Green/Left policies did not include over 100 000 dead civilians and 4000 dead servicemen. Plus the hundreds of thousands that are now damaged, some beyond repair, that the US VA wants to ignore.
If anything the moderate center/left that I identify with will be cleaning up the mess your lunatic fringe has left for generations.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/21/cbsnews_investigates/main4032921.shtml
“perhaps beyond your knowledge King Canute”
Ian: Mermaids from the deep keep me well informed.
“Carbon dioxide, methane up sharply in 2007-US govt”
“In its annual index of greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, rose by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tonnes last year.
The amount of methane increased by 0.5 percent, or 27 million tonnes, after nearly a decade of little or no change, according preliminary figures to scientists at the government’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado.
Methane’s greenhouse effect is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide’s, but there is far less of it in the atmosphere. Overall, methane has about half the climate impact of carbon dioxide.
The primary source of carbon dioxide is the burning of fossil fuels, which is increasing, with China now the world’s biggest emitter, said Pieter Tans, who studies greenhouse gases at the laboratory. The United States is second”. Deborah Zabarenko Reuters
NZ ice melting???
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
This is appearing to become a very serious issue if it continues to grow at this rate its an 8 month trend and winter hasn’t even arrived so SH anomaly this winter in SH is goinfg to be something to watch
Ivan – but what about the skeptics religious beliefs – where we are constantly drip fed any amount of utter rubbish science to keep up a barrage of flak and manufactured uncertainty. Most of which is internally inconsistent. Our kooky astronaut story being a great example of much about nothing – the guy wouldn’t have a clue.
Skeptics have shown much more religious zeal – you yourself have assumed immediately that what the science is showing us MUST be linked to a certain policy outcome. You’ve pre-supposed everything I think.
The fact that the issue has been moulded into a left/green issue is an example of more religion at work. Yours !
I mean really – your comments about Jonestown and zero energy lifestyles are simply idiotic rhetoric!
Of course maybe we’ve just lucked it through to this point –
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23594665-952,00.html
There is evidence of changing but not 100% definite. That is why we debate. But shutting the debating door is a bad sign… If the evidence only supports 20% chance of global warming, will we just act as if is for sure?
Lawrie
Nah – it’s not Luke, the guy on YouTube has more sophisitcated arguments!
For the benefit of all you sanctimonious “holier-than-thou” ranters that immediately jump to the
“climate skeptics are supported by Big Oil” conspiracy theory, you may wish to consider the following:
RealClimate (the people who distort history and lie for the IPCC) was set up by Environmental Media Services (EMS).
EMS was heavily funded by (amongst others):
– the Energy Foundation (Rockefeller),
– the Rockefeller Family Fund,
– Pew Charitable Trusts (Sun Oil),
– the Rockefeller Brothers Fund,
– the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation (aka Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge),
– the Ford Foundation (big auto).
EMS was established in 1994 as a project of the Tides Center. The Tides Centre (and in particular
its Tides Foundation) has one purpose in life – it “launders” money for donors who wish to pass it along to their intended beneficiaries and avoid leaving a “paper trail.”
Look under the cover for who has made grants to the Tides Foundation:
– Pew Charitable Trusts (Sun Oil),
– ChevronTexaco Foundation (big oil)
– the Ford Foundation (big auto)
– the Energy Foundation (Rockefeller),
– the Rockefeller Family Fund (biggest oil),
– the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation …
– and so on.
Shock horror!
You mean to tell me that the AGW Industry isn’t purer than the driven snow after all??
And what is the interest of Big Oil (in particular the Rockefeller family – the Biggest Oil of the lot) in keeping the AGW Industry afloat, I wonder?
And how stupid of the AGW Industry ranters not to realise any of this – given that they are spreading the revealed truth of God, after all.
“”Climate Scientists” look in every garbage can, under every rock and rotting log for anything at all that they can hold up and scream: “Look! Look! Proof of warming!” Start with the conclusion – then look for something that can resemble a ‘fact’.”
The climate is global, the climate is changing. All life on earth depends on the climate. Maybe that’s why they are concerned?
“You hypocrites.”
nailed it, Luke. I think I can now see the advantage in not having a consensus. It means that any and all arguments counter to AGW can be used, no matter how mutually exclusive they are.
google on a few key words from thoughts posted here leads to Astute Bloggers and Reliapundit – see April 24 for an example of their political rhetoric
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/
I note their world is not a place for our average woman.
“but what about the skeptics religious beliefs…”
Speaking of hypocrites: refresh my memory – when was the last time you had a ‘skeptic’ trying to force their ‘religion’ down your throat and control your life:
– “You must save the planet!”
– “You must reduce your carbon footprint!”
– “You must reduce your electricity consumption!”
– “You must leave your car at home and use public transport!”
– “You must close coal-fired power stations!”
– …. shall I go on?
The problem with the AGW Ranters is that they confuse legitimate debate with religion — probably because they have no understanding of the former.
I remember a poster that I saw years ago — it read something like: “Support mental health or I’ll kill you!”. I can’t help but feel the AGW Industry should adopt something like this as their motto.
Luke – the fact that Climate Change is a very long term phenomenon is entirely compatible with testing short term IPCC projections.
“Forcing their ‘religion’ down my throat” – err – never actually.
Haven’t received any delegations, knocks on the door, material in the mail, phone calls or emails to that effect. TV reports a bit I guess but you can turn the channel.
Ivan – most people are watching the footy and don’t give a rats. And even more important – Big Brother starts soon.
Ahhh … we were all wondering where you get your information from. Thanks.
Ivan – “RealClimate (the people who distort history and lie for the IPCC) was set up by Environmental Media Services (EMS).”
Well they are doing a pretty shit job then if these companies set them up to promote action on climate change that would reduce their profits.
So what would you have Real Climate do? You must be getting pretty desperate to bring this one up. What happened, no more figures to make up?
Ender,
I doubt they are contributing to reduce their profits. Their profits seem pretty good. Maybe that was what they wanted. The coal industry will do well out of sequestration as they will sell at least 50% more coal for the same amount of energy to the grid.
I could make the case that biofuels are negative in energy balance so the oil and gas companies get to sell more product as more oil is used to sow, grow, harvest and transport the crops and natural gas makes fertiliser. Spreading the belief that oil will soon run out makes a good excuse to raise the price.
So who are the dupes?
Someone at least has a brain!
Nice article on current US oil use here:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm
One more thing, Ender: By funding the greenies the above mentioned groups can at any time remove the funding or discredit them.
I’m sure the top folks(as distinct from the poor duped low level cannon fodder) at Greenpeace, FoE , WWF etc etc will continue to work for free though once there is no more money for their salaries and be totally objective in their public views even if continued salaries depends on expousing the sponsors’ views unlike the dreadful AGW deniers whose views can apparently be bought quite cheaply by big oil./sarcasm off
Best fun last week was the green on green spat about CO2 sequestration from coal burning.
Paul Biggs says’the fact that Climate Change is a very long term phenomenon is entirely compatible with testing short term IPCC projections.’ This is exactly what adapting is all about. If we are faced with increasing uncertainty, the rational response is to monitor like crazy to understand it and reduce it. So tell me Paul how are you monitoring a long term trend in the short term without the trees getting in the way of the woods.?