This morning’s Ockham’s Razor broadcast was by Don Aitkin on global warming. Presenter Robyn Williams introduced him in these terms:
“It is one of the disappointments of my life as a broadcaster that I’ve never managed to interview Nigella Lawson. How would she fit into a science program you may wonder, but that’s mere detail.
I have, on the other hand, had her father Nigel Lawson on the Science Show, talking about innovation or some such, with his usual flair and penetrating intelligence. Not a science-trained man, but economics is near enough, isn’t it, and he was Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer (or Treasurer).
Now Lord Lawson has brought out a book on climate called An Appeal to Reason. Here’s the first paragraph of a review in this week’s Spectator magazine:
‘When there is so much data suggesting the world’s climate is heating up’, goes the review, ‘some may find it presumptuous of Nigel Lawson, who is not a scientist and has undertaken no original research, to hope to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Would we take seriously an appraisal of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer written by someone whose only expertise was in oceanography?’
Well the same could apply to Professor Don Aitkin, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, a political scientist and like Lawson, a journalist. Professor Aitkin gave a lecture on climate to the Planning Institute of Australia, A Cool Look at Global Warming. That was a couple of weeks ago, and I thought you might like to hear some of his thoughts, recast for Ockham’s Razor. Though 9 out of 10 Australians are said to be alarmed at climate change, 10% think differently, and Professor Aitkin is one of them.”
There are a number of issues of impartiality that arise from this introduction, but in this post I am interested in the main slight which is that because Aitkin is a “journalist” (I actually think he would be more correctly described as a social scientist) he cannot be taken seriously on the issue of climate change.
So, I’m interested in what qualifications Robyn Williams has. Afterall, while argument from authority has no role to play in establishing the truth of a proposition, turned back on its proponent it can often be the best demonstration of just how hollow their argument is.
Here is what I think I know about Williams. Happy to be corrected, or to have the list extended.
He has an honours degree in biology. He does not have qualifications in physics, climatology or earth-sciences
He has some honorary PhDs, but he does not have an actual PhD
He is a visiting professor at UNSW, but is not actually on staff
He is an adjunct professor at UQ, but is not actually on staff
He has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics.
If I am correct in all of this it leads to the conclusion that his only standing on this issue is as a journalist, with a particular political bent, who is no better qualified than Don Aitkin. Which in his own terms must make it quite improper to make the introduction that he did. Afterall, with those qualifications, what would he know?
Graham Young
Ambit Gambit
This is a cross post from http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002974.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Introduction is hardly surprising , when you can’t sink the argument, shoot the messenger instead, is the standard technique but I had not realised Williams was that far left. One never stops learning.
“He has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics.”
Hah, you’re funny.
Jennifer has a PhD in biology. She does not have qualifications in physics, climatology or earth-sciences as far I can tell, yet the Oz is citing her as an authority on climate change.
Jennifer, thanks for all the good times. But sadly I must say adieu.
I won’t waste any more time here.
Just filing this here:
Andrew Bolt
Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 06:21am
Robyn Williams, host of the ABC’s Science Show, is a shameless exaggerator of global warming.
Amazingly, even one of his favorite warming experts confirms that Williams has exaggerated by at least 100 the maximum sea level rise expected this century.
How does he get away with it?
To recap.
Last week on the Science Show, we had this exchange:
Andrew Bolt: I’m telling you, there’s a lot of fear out there. So what I do is, when I see an outlandish claim being made…so Tim Flannery suggesting rising seas this next century eight stories high, Professor Mike Archer, dean of engineering at the University of NSW…
Robyn Williams: Dean of science.
Andrew Bolt: Dean of science…suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.
Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge.
I’ve written before about what I regard as unprincipled or deceptive behavior by Williams in that interview, but let’s concentrate here on his claim that recent increases in melting in Greenland and Antarctica justify his claim that the seas could rise 100 metres in a century.
What, first, does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually predict?
Not seas level rises at worst of 100 metres this century, but just 59cm.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_williams_exaggerates_again/
100 metres, eh! If you’re gonna tell a lie, make it a big one. Greenland’s ice would, of course, take several thousand years melt, which iirc, would amount to a 7 metre sea level rise. There could be a combination of reasons why the small part of Antarctica (West) is melting, but it ain’t gonna give 100 metres by 2100
The IPCC have been poor at projecting decadal sea level rise, so AR4 has gone for an un-testable 90-year projection instead.
I don’t think Jennifer has made any predictions, just observed what the head of the IPCC said about a ‘temperature plateau,’ and what’s happened to the various temperature data sets during the past few years, including ocean heat content.
Sorry to see you go Mr T, but I can’t say I blame you. All the best.
He’s probably gone to buy a boat.
Fair enough but all so strange that you guys would never comment on all the stuff that Bolt has gotten wrong on AGW over years. How many pages have we got?
That’s right – denialist rule 3.4 – never criticise another skeptic no matter how crazy it is. So do who thinks Chapman is right then and another ice age is imminent?
But what’s even more interesting is the 60 Minutes style of interview cutting that’s gone on above. The full interview and why they were there is worth reading. http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20061005-Climate-change-scientist-quoted-by-Bolt-fights-back.html?CurrentDate=15+%2F+04+%2F+2008
So this week’s operational plan is lay one on Flannery and Williams to divert from Chapman is it?
As Bolt said “Look, I’m not a climatologist but I am someone whose business is trying to find truth from lots of claims made” yes yes like – http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/bolt-caught-deceiving-yet-again.html sure we all believe you ….
It’s interesting to ponder some of those decadal fluctuations in sea level that impact on projections.
Dams and water storages affect sea level.
New research shows that constructed water storages appear to have had a significant impact on global sea level rise and if modelled has linearised the rate of rise over the last 80 years.
Science 11 April 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5873, pp. 212 – 214
Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level
B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li
College of Earth Sciences, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, ROC.
The abstract states “By reconstructing the history of water impoundment in the world’s artificial reservoirs, we show that a total of 10,800 cubic kilometres of water has been impounded on land to date, reducing the magnitude of global sea level (GSL) rise by –30.0 millimetres, at an average rate of –0.55 millimetres per year during the past half century. This demands a considerably larger contribution to GSL rise from other (natural and anthropogenic) causes than otherwise required. The reconstructed GSL history, accounting for the impact of reservoirs by adding back the impounded water volume, shows an essentially constant rate of rise at +2.46 millimetres per year over at least the past 80 years. This value is contrary to the conventional view of apparently variable GSL rise, which is based on face values of observation.”
As the authors discuss sea level varies on all temporal and spatial scales for a host of reasons. Significant decadal variability exists. Tide gauge data indicate that GSL has risen at +1.7 to 1.8 mm/year during the 20th century, whereas satellite altimetry during 1993–2007 shows an accelerated rate of +3.36 ± 0.4 mm/year. One-quarter to one-half of the rise in the past half century is believed to have come from the thermal expansion of the top layers of global oceans while the rest comes from a combination melting of mountain glaciers plus that of the ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland, as well as climate-driven variations in soil water, inland seas, and large lakes
The authors calculate that the difference of –0.55 mm/year due to artificial reservoirs represents a considerable (negative) impact to the GSL rise budget for the past several decades, which has more than compensated for nearly all of the individual natural or anthropogenic (positive) contributions described above. This creates an even larger gap in the GSL rise budget, demanding a larger contribution from the natural (and perhaps anthropogenic) causes than otherwise required.
Whilst I’m not a scientist in the professional sense I have always had the view that because we spend our lives continually immersed in cause and effect situations then we hold fast to a belief in causality (the “how”) where we are all scientists to some extent. We are also all artists concerned with the “what” and philosophers interrogating the “why”. My argument is why should we allow vested interests try to take these abilities from our lives?
One of my chief concerns relates to the role of the media when it comes to examining science. The ABC, our national broadcaster, has been truly disgraceful for on very important scientific issues all we see is the rise of a particularly nasty media priest class delivering propaganda with an obvious promotion of ugly `scientism’.
Our national broadcaster the ABC is not well served by the likes of Robyn Williams. Williams may be an articulate and witty media savvy science bugs bunny but he simply still follows what he sees as the good fairie dust of the the big bang hypothesis with its high priests and now on the “hot” topic of climate here he is again arrogantly promoting influence and misinformation. For all the years he has been in the media interviewing scientists he still hasn’t progressed beyond reducing science to theology where he certainly has a talent for the fictional. I suggest he would be very successful writing science fiction and Harry Potter type stories.
If Kevvy honestly believes in an education revolution and seeks to be known as the education prime minister then he needs to fully explain how he approaches this desire for the true achievement of human potential. His education revolution in Australia should start by depoliticising science and opening it up to greater scrutiny and debate. There needs to be a specific role for investigative science journalism which seems dead and buried and over-run by these cheap but influential media bugs bunnies.
Rudd should start with the establishment of a dedicated national science channel to address for starters just how humanity collectively can ensure a continued appreciation of the beauty of existence and the fact that all our actions are evolutionary.
Luke,
I read the crikey link. That’s a fight back? Reads more like an evasion of the issue.
Luke, if there were skeptics dealing with believers like this, then I’d certainly kick up a stink. But there is a power imbalance. Name me one skeptic who is a broadcaster and who is in a position to denigrate a guest like this, and who has.
Yep it’s far from what you’d expect – but don’t get too precious or we’ll have to sack every Aussie journalist/broadcaster/opinion editor there ever was.
And guys like Bolt are impolite to people on a daily basis – so a bit touchy don’t you think?
Rule 3.4 denialists never criticise their own.
On climate, there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view that they are carbon sinners, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue. I simply find this profoundly disquieting.
When “fairy dust” Williams proudly promotes that but “10% of Australians, according to the Climate Institute, say they are not alarmed at the prospect of climate change”, it also assumes with anthropogenic grandeur that the debate in Australia is over without acknowledging that the case for AGW has been fully created from careless/very selective data acquisition and dodgy data processing. i.e. When you have a virtual monopoly of research funding and a media priest class in your pocket, who needs integrity? As this shonky process gains momentum, science faces a diminishing role in public policy.
“Luke, if there were skeptics dealing with believers like this, then I’d certainly kick up a stink. But there is a power imbalance. Name me one skeptic who is a broadcaster and who is in a position to denigrate a guest like this, and who has.”
It’s weird, isn’t it? There are drive shows from dawn to dusk, classic rock, talkback till your eardrums bleed, reverends and nostalgia, but Private Enterprise can’t find a few minutes for some science. Aint it awful. Counterpoint does a good job for the sceptics, though, on Radio National.
“Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge.”
It’s possible, if the unexpected happens. We have already seen, glacial breakdown is unpredictable, and dealing with AGW is a matter of risk management. Do we only deal with the more probable risks, or should we ignore the more extreme, but unlikely, risks?
SJT says,
“…dealing with AGW is a matter of risk management. Do we only deal with the more probable risks, or should we ignore the more extreme, but unlikely, risks?”
I fully agree. There is a plausible case for another ice age sometime in the not too distant future. This would be an almost unimaginable human calamity. AGW could prevent this. All this is of course uncertain but the probability is arguably no less than that of catastrophic global warming. The precautionary principle demands we should take action. Everything practical to promote global warming should be done.
So you believe in AGW? As for an ice age, there is no reason to believe there will be an ice age, since the Milankovitch cycles indicates a stable climate, and we have no way of predicting the behaviour of the sun.
Luke,do you not think that the paving over of the world would possibly account for much more storm water runoff than dam storage would retain thereby artificially inflating sea levels?
These UHIs and all the roads connecting them shed a lot of water.
Add to that the rest of the clearing etc. that civilisation has added to cause extra watershed.
These areas almost never run into dams.
Can someone please explain to me how, with the points of the milankovitch cycles being so sharp and the Holocene now 10,000 years long, we would not be closer to sliding off the cliff [cooling] than going up in the balloon?
100 metres isn’t ‘possible’ – if every bit of ice in the world was to melt, the sea level would rise by 60 to 75 metres, over many thousands of years.
100 metres in the next century is pure fanatsy that no one shoud defend.
Interesting point Tamborine Man. One would need to make a formal calculation of the changes in area of impervious surfaces in cities over time. Then subtract would would have runoff in any case in the natural state. Could be done with remote sensing and historical cadastral information. I don’t have a really good feel for the relativity of the numbers but intuitively I’m not sure it’s a big number in a global sense. Will try some Googling on city areas and urban runoff.
BTW I have posted new research on the opposite effect – the impact of dams and reservoirs on sea level on a thread in this blog this week. Original reference: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154580
Tamborine Man – this is a compact summary of Milankovitch theory
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
It’s worth reading the Berger and Hollan links in the above web link.
But in summary:
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 – 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).
Jan Hollan suggests we should not extrapolate past trends. We should look at reliably computed past, current and future forcings instead. Hollan computes this graph http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/graphs/ins-5-2.png from these complex orbital mathematics
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1993A%26A…270..522L&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
So essentially it doesn’t get cold enough with the current Milankovitch cycles is the point !
Hollan states that it is evident we have almost reached the near-future insolation minimum already. Before the atmosphere returns to normal (thousands of years), we will be on the increasing part of the insolation curve again.
Which all implies – no Milankovitch based ice age predicted for 50,000 years according to Jan Hollan.
(Caveat: Peter Harris – on his ice age guest post below in this blog disagrees with me and you should read his comments).
Flannery set himself up as a climate alarmist – so when his short term alarmism falls on its face, he has to take the flak. He should go back to his real job as a palaeontologist. Looks a though Flannery has been out alarmed by Robyn Williams – depends if his ‘roof of an 8 storey building being lapped by waves’ is less than 100 metres.
http://www.mdpi.net/sensors/papers/s7091962.pdf gives an estimate of constructed impervious surfaces of 0.43 % of the world’s land surface (579,703 km2. Some more work on mapping techniques here http://www.spatial-accuracy.org/2006/PDF/Canters2006accuracy.pdf
However is any storage involved or does the urban areas simply speed up a slower delivery to the stream? See the discharge hydrograph here http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/ so long term effect not that much.
Of course it’s a complex issue and the more you look the more questions you can find. e.g. http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/session_6/20080205%20han%20TRMM%20Conference_sb.ppt
Anyway not convinced it’s a big number in the overall long term balance.
Luke,thanks for both those thoughtful replies.
I hope you are right about the ice age. We had some below zeros around here this morning and I wonder if this is some sort of record for April?
Saw my first Rose Robin this morning. Very early for a winter visitor.
Re increased storm water runoff: farming and grazing have serious effects world wide as well as more developed areas have.
I have allowed my farm in recent years to “go back to nature” for wildlife rehabilitation and the bio-mass build up is phenomenal. Bushfires become a concern. However it now takes 250mm of rain to run the gully into my dam where it used to take only 50.
Extrapolate that world wide [it would be very difficult], but I feel that stormwater retention on land must certainly be reducing.
I’m glad that Bolt’s session with Robyn Williams got mentioned here. I remember listening to the exchange, and thought Williams was admirably patient with Bolt. In fact, I sent him an email congratulating him on having the patience of a saint, and directed him to BoltWatch: http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/ (alas, discontinued). He appreciated it.
from a reader,
his father was a Marxist and he was involved in radical politics at an early age – street marches etc – http://www.abc.net.au/talkingheads/txt/s1505785.htm