UN Embarrassed By Forecast On Climate Refugees Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones. –Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online, 18 April 2011 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,757713,00.html
Meanwhile a new forecast is doing the rounds. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February, Cristina Tirado, an environment researcher at the University of California in Los Angeles, warned of 50 million environmental refugees in the future. That figure was a UN projection she said — for 2020. –Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online, 18 April 2011 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,757713,00.html
The United Nations Environment Programme has tried to erase one of its glaring failed predictions about climate refugees by removing a map from its website purporting to show where 50 million climate refugees will come from by 2010. –Gavin Atkins, Asian Correspondent, 16 April 2011 http://asiancorrespondent.com/52560/cover-up-un-tries-to-erase-failed-climate-refugee-prediction/
Via CCNet – 19 April 2011 and The Climate Policy Network (more information here http://www.thegwpf.org )
Developers of popular online poki games are constantly improving their products in order to achieve greater popularity and implement their developments in all areas, including the one that is mentioned here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
In this regard Tim Flannery sprouting nonsense is an excellent example of climate alarmism – which has failed to materialize. The models for the most part are wrong, but if they eliminate the CO2 factor…..
On the other hand, if Archibald is correct and temperatures in New Hampshire fall by a couple of degrees by 2020, we will all be forced to take a cold shower.
US AAA ratings set to tumble and Maurice Newman says we have less than eight years to get our house in order before the US becomes bankrupt.
Maurice seems to think that a new tax would not be a wise move at this juncture.
The whole ‘climate change’ AGW alarmist politics scenario is becoming sillier by the day.
As we test their theories against emerging real data, the theories are not ‘holding water’.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that our climate is in a state of flux.
Why that is happening and whether we can do much about it anyway is really the issue.
The AGW theories must have appeared perfectly reasonable at the time of formulation.
Emerging ‘real data’ tells me (a farmer who actually lives out in ‘the real environment’) that ‘Mother Nature’ is still hiding some key secrets (AKA variables) that we just haven’t got close to figuring out yet.
I absolutely believe that we should all keep working on the climate puzzle.
I just don’t think it is wise to keep defending ‘projected data’ against ‘real data’.
It is actually ‘unscientific’ to do that isn’t it?
Aren’t they supposed to test their theories against reality?
The ‘real data’ is indicating that the science is probably ‘not settled’.
I feel sorry for the ‘scientists’ who seem to be prematurely hijacked by politics.
They are not being allowed to do what they were born to do.
When we have the Bob Brown’s of the world loudly proclaiming things like the QLD coal mines were directly responsible for the QLD floods, we can see that good old common sense and practical reality have deserted the debate!
We’ll all pay dearly for that.
Luke,
PUT THE GRAPH BACK NOW!!!
That’s right Kuhnkat, if I remember correctly Luke is a big believer in the climate refugee threat. Just like he was a big believer in the desiccation-of-Australia due to CAGW, but now that the Big Wet has return he sings a new tune…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7QL46cK7B8
What is it about human nature that makes it so difficult for otherwise rational people to admit they were wrong and just move on to the next big idea?
The cognitive dissonance here is palpable. Imagine if Climate Alarmists use the same sort of denial of the evidence while attempting to navigate the highways of Sydney or Melbourne while driving their cars. They’d all be dead by now or at the very least hopelessly lost.
Yet, I have no doubt that True Believer Luke can navigate our roads just fine because he imposes no irrational belief structure on how our roads work, instead he uses evidence, common sense and a rational driving skillset to construct a model of the roadway before him that most closely conforms to the immediate evidence in order to avoid being crushed by oncoming road-train convoys full of climate refugees.
The residents of Britain are suffering from AGW fatigue, but have no one to vote for.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1378483/Do-global-warming-fatigue-Just-25-Britons-think-climate-change-important-environmental-issue.html#ixzz1K27FZTvS
Cohers, they need a sceptics party!
What about conservation refugees?
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/conservation-refugees/
wes george,
Luke drives?? Doesn’t that contribute to the destruction of the world?? NAAAAHHHH. Not our own Luke!!!
Ride a bicycle made out of garden grown bamboo maybe…
I have just learned a very interesting lesson, and I read about it at the Bolt Blog, so straight away, right there, Luke will be scoffing, but Luke old mate, this does have something to do with you.
You always seem to be pushing the mantra of ‘peer reviewed’ published data, and if it’s not peer reviewed published data, then it’s worth is nothing.
It would seem that the ‘published peer review’ process has now also become a clique only scam, and anything that is not along ‘established’ thinking just does not get published.
Professor Ross McKitrick explains how he had an article questioning accepted beliefs, but could not get it published anywhere.
It seems that the only articles that will be accepted for publication are those that support the accepted theories.
McKitrick says:
“It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.
This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intellectual corruption.”
Here’s the link to the Bolt Post:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_peer_review_corrupts_the_warming_science/
If a noted Professor is saying this, then I now feel a whole lot better.
Luke’s reply might be that this Professor is only an Economist anyway, so that doesn’t count.
Gee, brings to mind Professor Ross Garnaut, eh!
Tony.
Tony I read that article from McKitrick as well, but another article by Bolt today is just as ( or more) disgusting because these promoters dream of a dictatorship to close down any debate about climate change.
This just shows the extreme opinions and nature of some of these prominent people.
This type of corruption of science and free opinion should be exposed by everyone who understands what some of these groups believe and the future they would impose on all of us if they could get away with it.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmist_sighs_for_the_freedom_of_a_dictatorship/
A couple of pars in this National Geographic News item (Nov 18, 2005) appear to link natural variability with AGW. It’s blatant propaganda, but these days only the gullible take it seriously.
‘Global Warming Refugees?
‘Environmental catastrophes like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami or Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans can uproot millions of people almost in an instant.
‘But many other people are displaced by gradual environmental shifts, many of which may be linked to climate change—such as desertification, diminishing water supplies, and rising sea levels.’
Shub is right that is what the Greens want to do with Cape York Qld -force the indigenous people off to save so-called wild rivers and a few frogs. See the story in the Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elders-stymie-cape-york-heritage-plans/story-fn59niix-1226042489994
As late as July 2008 the president of the 62nd General Assembly was claiming 50 to 200 million environmental refugees by 2010.
Paragraph 13 under statements:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm
But let’s face it, all of us, apart from indigenous Africans, are pretty much environmental reffos but not because of excess ACO2, possibly not enough.
Remember the Sahara Pump?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharan_pump_theory
Gee that’s awful on McKitrick – someone had a problem getting published – oh boo hoo ! Sob sob sob.
Gee that never happens to anyone …. unprecedented – were they a sceptic? Gee it’s possibly a universal world-wide conspiracy. But we’ve still got E&E ….
And what was the source – Bolta – hahahahahahahahahahahaa – oh do go on boyz.
As for Wegman – what a sceptic stooge. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/wegman_scandal_gmu_investigate.php
It was not a scientific publication, this was a report for congress. Bradley was listed 9 times in the Wegman bibliography. Hardly plagiarism…
Luke,
yes, that was quite a lot of effort to try and smear Wegman over what is standard practice. Wouldn’t we all love to have the time to audit every piece of work NOT done for publication by people we don’t like, to smear them?!?!?!
How much time and money do you think was wasted on the NON-PEER REVIEWED Wegman presentation to Congress bud??
Oh, bu the way, what ever happened with that? Can you point to where he was sanctioned or slapped on the wrist or sued or something?? I seem to remember that a particular accusatroy rear end turned out to have copied substantial sections in his PUBLISHED work.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for reminding us about the blatant hypocrisy and grasping at straws from y’all fanatics Luke!!!
Oh yeah!!! I just remembered that the most outrage was over a page copied from Wikipedia for the background information!!! Seems at the time there was no attribution on the page. After they realized they could embarras Wegman’s team they got someone to put their name on it!! I should point out that the networking stuff written there was already old hat in the late 60’s!!! That dufus who put his name on it is close to plagiarism himself!! He isn’t old enough to have originated the ideas!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Tony, Tony, Tony…mate.
The peer review process has always been about powerfully endowed cliques protecting their turf and pet theories against all comers no matter what the discipline is about. That’s what peer review is designed to do–defend the “Peers” from truly pertinent criticism. It’s about slowing the evolution of “science” down, so that the tenured can retire emeritus and die with honours before their life’s work can be shown to be worse than useless.
Peer review only works when the matter at hand is purely academic and therefore moot.
If Boeing or Intel built airplanes or computers based upon peer review quality control, planes wouldn’t fly and computers wouldn’t compute. So why should we be surprised that real world climate forecasts by academics will fair any better?
Peer review is about good ol’ boy networks vetting the young bloods before allowing them to publish in the sacred journals of all-knowing orthodoxy in an effort to nip heretical ideas in the bud… Naturally, all the most searingly trenchant criticism of a particular discipline turns up in the snarky, know-nothing journal of the next discipline over…
The inbred climatological community unfortunately played up beyond their league when their apocalyptic numerically modeled hand wringing was appropriated by cunning political demagogues as a convenient excuse to tax the very air we respire.
If kilmatoloogy had stayed a nice little academic backwater teleconnecting argo-floats and tree-rings we would have never noticed what a bunch of sniveling little academic weasels they really are.
Such is life.
Not only do I feel better, but now I’m actually laughing.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Tony.
Peer review – it was supposed to be stopping plagiarism, but since developed into the situation Wes George has described.
Luke, not being in the business of writing scientific papers, reacts accordingly; and as a libarian – knows the sources but has no idea of the ideas forming his sources.
Blog dingbats feel anyone can play – neurosurgery – let any quack have a go. Wessy wonk knows best.
This is non-peer review in action Tony and why we have E&E ! hahahahahahaha
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
You shameless loon luke, Archibald predicted a weak solar 24 and 25:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/the-smallest-sunspot-cycle-in-two-hundred-years/
What successful predictions have your lot made recently?
Does anyone know if Archibald will be touring with Monckton?
Cohenite you con-artist – what a journal. This is what Wes calls “sceptics peer review” – hahahahahahaha – “any old iron, any old iron, any any any old iron ….” “step right up folks – every player wins a prize – anyone can have a go – step right up …”
Hey Cohenite – I predict winter will be colder than summer – hahahahahahaha – tell us when old mate publishes any cross validation stats.
Carbon dioxide is a coolant?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7560&linkbox=true&position=2
Thanks for that link EG.
When you go to the O’Sullivan article he mentions one of the scientists is Nasif Nahle, very interesting.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/35681.html
There will be 50 million ‘environmental refugees’ by 2020.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jnW80NlFZ259UCgMAHSd3ekHutiQ?docId=CNG.aa651167cd0af745b3cb395cf1d402e3.c41
They moved the goal posts and thought we wouldn’t notice.
Lets face it Peer Review as practiced by the climatariat has been provenly shown to be one of the biggest shonks around.
If the Auditer General/ONA was doing his job he would have this system of assessment and ranking banned.
And until the climatariat can come up with a more sensible method of dealing with it, then all funds should cease and/or be withdrawn.
I absolutely object these academic nit wits wasting any more of the the tax payers dollars in this manner.
When they have dealt with that in a professional and sensible manne,r perhaps they could turn their tiny minds to this sort of thing.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/
Malcom Hill,
I find that link a little frightening. If such blatant bias sits at the top of the IPCC machine unchallenged,
what chance does truth have ?
“Academic nit wits” from emeritus Mal. Pullease ! Essentially climate sceptic skunks and other bottom feeders hate peer review as they are quickly exposed.
Trash like O’Sullivan loves to pen is pure drivel – no peer review – all pers comm gossip from ya mates. He’d sell you the Harbour Bridge as well.
Good to see you back in form, old fella.
Well come on, loopy luke from loser land
Tell us how many papers you have had published your life.
By the history of your know- all comments on this blog over the years, it surely must be more than 100’s… .or would that be an exaggeration… say 50.
..or is it just the case that you have been just infected with the attitude that pervades climate science, and are just demonstrating your own inimatable capacity for being another parrot…peer reviewed of course.
I would have also thought that it was the endless reviews, and behaviour of the UEA etc etc that has exposed so called climate science and its processes, for the fraud that it is.
Ian Thomson
My sentiments exactly..It is frightening the depths to which our systems of Government are now failing us.
Truth has never had a chance with this lot,either. Too many hands in the tax payer till and a PS that has become moribund, run as it is by corporate psychopaths whose only skills are political connections.
If you would like to see a clasic example of peer review gone mad. Check this one out.
http://www.mdba.gov.au/files/publications/PeerReview280311.pdf
I will add that the MDBA first tried to publish this without (yes that’s right without) publishing the names of the actual peer reviewers.
When they realised that no one was going to fall for that trick, they republished as you see here.
It actually has Quentin Grafton peer reviewing the work of Quentin Grafton (I kid you not!) 3 TIMES !!!!among other wierd and wonderful examples of the tangled web that has become peer review.
And they wonder why people become skeptical? Seriously?
Going back to the topic of this thread….MDB broad acre irrigators will be some of those supposed climate refugees if the federal Govt and the MDBA gets their way.
Unfortunately for all of us, it won’t be because of the climate.
It will be a self fulfilling, political prophecy!
Peer review like democracy isn’t perfect. But obviously sceptics prefer to “publish” on partisan blogs and faux journals rather face serious analysis. So they’re bullshit artists.
Otherwise blog your rejected paper and reviewers comments as to why it was rejected.
Bit no – you won’t see that. Coz they embarrassed to tell you !
In fact serious scientists in controversial areas will ask for internal review and external review before formal journal review.
So again peer review ain’t perfect – but what are you saying – you’d like no review by anyone remotely qualified at all?
Speaking of peer review:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/113676.html
The piece was actually co-authored by Dr David Stockwell but the ABC is yet to put his mugshot up.
And for luke; CFCs:
http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf
David has asked Miskolczi to run Lu’s CFC data through HARTCODE to ascertain the effect ACFCs have had on the definitive measure of the greenhouse effect, the optical depth. Even Hansen has wised up to CFCs:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
Although like the rat he is, he is still making outrageous declarations about sea level rise.
Any comparison between the short comings of democracy and peer review is just more puerile nonsense from you.
There are many ways that the system of ranking and asessment could be improved, but they the climatariat, and the cowardly govt officials all over the world of all people, dont say a word
Why would they, when they the scientists can scam it …as Jones et al, have so clearly demonstrated for one example.
and, as for calling someone “bull shit artists” obviously you would have to include those who take money from environmental extremists whilst are also taking leading roles in the IPCC, as highlighted in the article referenced previously.
Hypocrisy at its best.
Listen to Hill go “- It is frightening the depths to which our systems of Government are now failing us.” but in contrast “Any comparison between the short comings of democracy and peer review is just more puerile nonsense from you.” nothing like choking hypocrisy. barf
Well I have had the last 5 years of reading endless palpable nonsense from you as this blogs vexatious expert commentator, defender of the faith, and all round know all …invariably based upon papers you have referenced, but not read, and/or outright naivety.
Like the idiot response above..doesnt come any better.
Nasif gets a run with O’Sullivan after appearing on JM’s ‘partisan blog’, now if Anthony has a change of heart the global coolant story would go viral.
This is better than peer review and even unqualified humans get to have a say.
No Luke,
I would like peer review to be conducted in the manner of peer reviews actual definition.
You know, independent experts who supposedly have the ability to test the research with a fresh pair of objective eyes.
If it was conducted that way I wouldn’t be complaining.
How could Prof Quentin Grafton possibly objectively review the research of Prof Quentin Grafton?
if that means I am an impossibly hopeless skeptic in your world then so be it.
I am doubly furious because that particular piece of research claims M D B communities will only forego 800 jobs if the
M D B A removes over 50 percent of productive water from my community and an average of 35 percent of all M D B communities.
Well Mally – you you’re the consummate old whining codger aren’t you. And a pig ignorant science antediluvian who prefers to get his information from shonks. Well done – that’s objective. Can I help if you aren’t able to read the real science?
Debbie – peer review isn’t perfect. e.g. sceptic nonsense like this can slip through – http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008JD011637.shtml But would you prefer to have none?
You see the system eventually corrects such silliness e.g. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012960.shtml a rebuttal
Couldn’t help notice the gang of four, Trenberth, Jones, Mann and Jones, doing their utmost to keep things on the straight and narrow.
‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'”
– George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3
No again Luke,
That was not what I said.
If I didnt see the crap that I posted or indeed some of what you have posted here I wouldnt be complaining. I have no intention of blindly accepting crap even if it comes under the title of peer review.
To argue that its Okay even if its not perfect when it directly attacks peoples livelihoods is not Okay by me.
Sorry.
If they are going to peer review then they should do it properly, especially when they have peoples livelihoods at stake.
I do want them to peer review. I just want to see it done with honesty and transparency.
Is that unreasonable?
Well I certainly dont peddle the pig ignorant nonsense you have put your name to over the last 5+ years…but then you have to defend the faith… your livelihood probably depends upon it.
And what pray tell is your ethical response to the claim that leading members of the IPCC climatariat are also being paid big bikkies by the environmental extremists like Green Peace and WWF
Silence has been your response…. which is what I had expected.
Shonkademia is certainly alive and well…. just ask your darling Timmy Boy.
Mally – my livelihood doesn’t depend on it at all. It’s not about faith – it’s about defense of good science done by back room boys and girls from the “mob”. i.e. you ! And your acidic ill-judged opinions of them.
As for your IPCC associated persons being paid big bikkies – they need to resign, declare openly or distance themselves. Flannery and sundry AGW personalities don’t help either. They should ping off.
Debbie – agree – crap is crap. However lack of peer review is a major concern in your ability to assess crappiness. For example someone forecasts an event or two and successfully – well so what? they could have fluked it – unless they publish the cross validation statistics of their hindcast on a longer data set or alternatively has independent forecasts where the data are not included in the model – well it’s junk. And some simple peer review would show you that. However blog it – and you can easily get away with it.
Hmmmm… what a mess the inside of our brain must be.
On the one hand you now accept that leading so called scientists involved in shonky deals with the extremists should resign and ping off, when these may be, and perhaps are, the very same ones who in another context you would be defending against ” the mob’.
You people are so stupid ….
Mal – well that’s IF they are in involved in “shonky deals” …. if some tea-party mouthed sceptic said so it’s at least 80% likely to be bullshit.
But you might be very surprised to find a whole swag of scientists working away that are not AGW media personalities like Flannery, Ove etc. Back room girls and boys you won’t see around, except on the literature titles and a whole process of science to which you also are unaware.
Don’t you find it strange that these scientists would undertake 7 years of university training in mind-bending tortuous mathematics and physics to take over the world? Wouldn’t accounting be easier?
1. Well the article referenced did provide the evidence. I know it would mean that you have to break the habit of a life time, and actually read and comprehend something, but the evidence is there.
2.Wasnt it Aynsley Kellow who took you to task recently for judging a book by its cover and not its contents… except that he phrased it as … the point being made could be sourced from the devil incarnate and still be valid.
3. So your “pseudo scientific estimate” of being 80% b/s is also up the creek.
4. I am well aware that the media creeps like Flannery et al are not the bulk of scientists, but one can only judge it by, a) what they produce, b) the protocols and process used to produce it, and, c) the public utterances and ethics of their leaders. It is pretty much a failure on all these points.
5. Spare me the cry baby b/s about how much time they have sent studying and the hard work that goes into to doing what they do. There are many 100’s of thousands of people like that in the community so why should these cry babies be treated any differently. If they dont like it, or cant do their work properly and ethically, then sure they should get a proper job..if accounting is easier, then so be it.
6. Of course the example provided is but one example of just how poor is the underlying ethical and procedural basis for ranking and assessing climate science…. which means that almost none of it is really worthy of our trust…..
My error – Malcolm 95% of sceptic stuff is pure evil bullshit spread by glazed zombies. Disinformation for tea party lovers.
“There are many 100′s of thousands of people like that in the community” No there’s not actually.
And they’re not cry babies – I simply said would be strange to spend 7 years doing all that work just to take over the world. But simpletons like yourself wouldn’t understand – it’s easier to tax dodge your way to riches isn’t it?
So hush your tea party mouth and stuff in another Easter Egg.
Luke,
Some of the crap is coming straight from the people who are directly funded by taxpayers and organisations like I P C C and WWF and ACF and MDBA etc.
They are doing no more favours to the genuine scientists you mention than to those of us who have their livelihoods under direct attack.
Unfortunately they have media and political attention.
Unfortunately our politicians are using this crap to justify their need to pander to the cafe latte urban green voter.
You are probabiy correct, it is also a failing inherent in democracy but I would throw your same argument back at you. Would you prefer no democracy?
I hate the fact that genuine scientists and researchers get thrown into the same basket as the shonky ones.
I dont believe that should prevent us from pointing out crap when we see it, even if its only in blogosphere.
A lot of us dont have the backing of limitless funding or media attention to make our point.
That doesnt change the fact that crap is crap wherever it appears.
That MDBA peer review, that is fully and legitamately published by your tax money, is one of the worst pieces of crap I have ever seen.
It immediately makes me wonder how much other crap is published under the auspices of legitimate peer review.
Debbie
There is no point arguing with the man. He is the perfect metaphor for whats wrong with climate science in this country.
As for whats wrong with Peer Review I have been keeping a file on this for some years now and it makes disturbing reading.
Whats of most concern is that there is no incentive for those in the system to change it for the better …they go along with its failures and foibles because it suits their causes
Even more serious is the fact that we are about to screw over the economies of the world and this one in particular when most of so called science has been published by a mates club … its a mutual back scratching system.There is even a case inthe USA where auther had a paper reviewed by a secret reviewer that turned out to be himself.
As for the IPCC, what a farce that has become ..with lead authers are being paid by environmental extremists
Debbie – you will notice how Mal’s mates would defend sceptic research done with oil industry money. What is normally said in such exchanges in the reverse situation is that it doesn’t matter who funds it – it’s the quality of the research. Unless the contract specifies the outcome.
To say it’s a mates club it a complete insult to major science journals in this field and Mally boy is simply talking crap. And he’s arguing from a few rare cases to the general. It’s simply noxious libel.
Debbie go to here http://www.agu.org/ or here http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/index.html and tell me your thoughts …. These will have never crossed Mally boy’s browser….
Debbie
When you have done reading the references from his eminence, here is but a sample of documented idiocies of PR as published by others. There are stacks more.
If it wasn’t so serious one could have a laugh and a giggle, but what the various Govts are about to do to us all, is based upon this deeply flawed and in some cases almost fraudulent system.
Peer Review by the UK SciTech Committee
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/1/27/scitech-committee-to-investigate-peer-review.html
The 19 comments are also very interesting.
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docLib/20100111_PB2202Climategate.pdf
Mainly related to the inadequacies of Michael Mann’s work and the lengths that he went to, to prevent scrutiny of his data, as uncovered by the Climate gate scandal. The UK academia/establishment went to extraordinary steps to white wash the whole thing but just succeeded in making it worse.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/texas-state-climatologist-ipcc-ar4-was-flat-out-wrong-relied-on-flawed-wwf-report/
IPCC says it uses only peer reviewed but ends up relying upon environmental extremist literature.
http://american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus/article_print
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/reviewer-a-responds/#more-33691
“This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own.
This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica-myths.thtml
“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed it – perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers..”
As Lewis & Ridley say in their closing paragraphs:
“Papers that come to lukewarm or sceptical conclusions are published, if at all, only after the insertion of catechistic sentences to assert their adherence to orthodoxy. Last year, a paper in Nature Geosciences concluded heretically that `it is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide’ (high sensitivity underpins the entire IPCC argument),
Science as a philosophy is a powerful, but fragile thing. In the case of climate, it is now in conflict with science as an institution.”
http://ep-ology.blogspot.com/2011/02/unhealthful-news-34-faith-in-peer.html
One mans experience with PR
The best one is this:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf
Parts of a book on the subject by Ross McKitrick
“Bias in the Peer Review process: A Cautionary and Personal account’
Draw your own conclusions .No doubt some unusual people find that the covers on these books are not to their liking.
There is literally heaps more of this stuff all very well founded
Thanks Luke and Mal,
Because I am personally involved in the MDB debate I have become dismayed at the reams of misinformation that is out there.
I feel sorry for genuine scientists and researchers who have obviously had their work prematurely hijacked.
I am horrified by our insanely expensive obsession with climate change. The amount of time and money that has been wasted on this obsession is truly mind boggling.
My life depends on me understanding my environment and the climate patterns. I cannot believe how much unadulterated crap has been published about my environment under the umbrella of best available science and peer review. It is truly crap, no matter how many graphs and models are used to try and justify it.
I still cant believe that anyone would think that Prof Quentin Grafton could possibly objectively review the incredibly shonky conclusions of Prof Quentin Grafton. How could anyone think he was an unbiased expert when he was clearly a member of the Wentworth Group which is also funded by WWF?
I have become a skeptic because my own personal experience tells me that when politics and populist ideals are involved, PEOPLE LIE to protect their reputation and their funding.
I do not blame genuine scientists and researchers Luke, unfortunately they have no more access to funding and the premium scientific journals than I do.
Even farming organisations have to put a climate change or environment tag on any government funding that is available at the moment. If you want to access funding you have to start from that place and argue that case. That is just ridiculous.
They are demanding an answer before we have even posed a question.
Debbie
Its is interesting that both of the references provided himself also happen to be involved in the book by Mckitrick in the context of whereby McKitrick was showing that the IPCC has used fabricated data and he Mckitrick was able to prove this statistically.
But for a variety of reasons, whilst not having anything wrong with his paper, they declined to publish …..of course rejection happens all the time, but one would have thought that when such a serious issue is uncovered,… and is apparently so well documented,… showing yet more incompetence by the IPCC, they should have been duty bound to publish.
But no, one cannot question the mantra and further damage the funding gravy train…that wouldnt do, would it now.
Look at Mal’s tactics – just do a gish gallop of pure crap from known disinformation sites, eccentrics, and campaigners. You have no decency have you. So much for any objectivity when any tea party clown can play.
Prepare to reenter the dark ages.
If the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2020, no one would believe them.
Which is a pity, because natural variability is predictable at decadal levels.
I have no interests in entering the dark ages.
I am actually a little concerned that’s exactly where we’re headed if we allow some of the mindless crap that is out there at the moment to go unquestioned because it is published in Govt funded reports.
I have an inkling that some of the crap that has been published lately under the auspices of science and peer review is actually more similar to the crap that was delivered to people in the dark ages than anything else around.
During the dark ages it was actually religious zealots who hijacked and silenced any information which did not agree with their view of the world and their view of God’s plan for the world.
Sound vaguely familiar?
I am not a scientist (as you have often let me know Luke) but I am actually a historian and your ‘dark ages’ argument is a little shaky to say the least.
I will also repeat that I feel sorry for genuine and committed scientists and researchers. They have unfortunately been dumped into the same basket as some of the charlatans who have unlimited political and media attention.
That is unfair and I do not support zealot ‘skeptics’ who unfortunately do that. They are actually guilty of the same behaviour, even though their motives are different.
Even sadder, are our new researchers and scientists who basically have to ‘sell their souls’ in order to access research grants and funding.
Have a look at the ‘deliberative global governance’ funding and rationale Luke and tell me that doesn’t bear a remarkable resemblance to the rot that went on in the dark ages. This time on a ‘global scale’.
Even Prof Ove who is studying the Great Barrier Reef with untold $millions, has to start from ‘the effects of climate change’ tag. His research is hijacked before it even begins. It has to start with an assumption that he must accept as a given. He is actually being forced to come up with an answer before he gets to even pose a question.
How dark ages can you possibly get?
Look at who accessed funding and also the ability to ‘peer review’ in the MDB research and reporting and tell me that there wasn’t something extremely ‘dark ages’ about that.
Making sneering remarks about the ‘tea party’ or any other group is really just ‘same s**t different day’.
All of them are pandering to the ignorance of the electorate and also to the bodies who hold the funding purse strings.
You have no reason to trust my judgement, but when your livelihood gets directly threatened and when the reports, the science, the peer review and the computer models are actually about the ‘environment’ that you live and work in and that you also possess generational knowledge about, it is extremely easy to spot the copious amounts of unadulterated crap that has no basis in reality!
Same goes for the mindless media attention that is more about good entertainment than actually attempting to understand the basic reality.
From my perspective, just as a simple example:
How was it possible for broad acre irrigators to steal water from the rivers when there wasn’t any water to steal in the first place?
Everyone seems to conveniently forget the simple basic reality that there was a drought and Australia does not have enough back up storage to cope with a drought like that.
It wasn’t possible to ‘return water to the environment’ BECAUSE THERE WASN’T ANY WATER TO RETURN!!!!! Hello everybody?????
Now that there is water evrywhere, they do not have a clue what to do with it or how to manage it because they had convinced themselves that it was never going to rain like that again. It almost appears as if they’re annoyed with the weather for misbehaving and disproving their view of the world that sits inside their computer models.
How ‘dark ages’ is that for heavens sake! (or to use Motty’s words for fox ache!)
How incredibly conceited are our legislators if they think that ‘mother nature’ is even remotely interested in following their policies or that they can legislate to do what mother nature has just done in the MDB?
Seriously? That is just so full of crap.
It doesn’t matter how many graphs and models they produce or how many millions they spend, they are NEVER going to be able to control our climate or indeed even emulate their ‘perception’ of what our climate ‘should’ be doing.
Despite their best efforts, they also are not able to accurately predict climate patterns yet either.
I think they should keep trying, but it infuriates me that they are not really allowed to because their research has been prematurely hijacked.
I have no intention of defending crap and I believe that people who are trying to do so are the ones who are capable of dumping us back into the Dark Ages.
Debs – Ove is “a” reef researcher. Just one. Can you name a few others of note? (no googling now)
And tell us – in a paragraph of two (it’s not a test) what do you understand is the core science message from the relevant MDB climate initiative (and again no google peeking)
Do you know?
El Gordo “natural variability is predictable at decadal levels” – no there is some mechanistic understanding – very different to predictable
Well put Debbie.
My sentiments exactly and boy what a contrast between your well composed response and the dribbling nonsense from his emminence.
At least he was entirely predictable ..and couldnt help himself and just had to have a go at the book covers, and not the points..and thereby revealing the shallowness of his own analytical skills.
At least he would qualify as climate scientist…and continue our descent into the very same dark ages he envisages.
Okay, mechanistic understanding. Natural variability is hard to predict in any real sense because it’s chaos masquerading as randomness.
All predictions about what the weather, politics and economics will be like in ten years are just guesstimates.
Luke
How many other reef researchers have acces to over $12million of Fed Govt funding with their answer already decided before they start the research?
No peeking or googling, you must know the answer to that question or you wouldn’t have asked me your question.
I don’t have to google the MDB report and science.
I have been over the whole lot with a fine tooth comb and tested their theories against reality!
Not reality over the whole basin, but the reality in my part of the basin.
It is mostly crap! It also ignores the carp which is one of our biggest environmental disasters.
Even their predictive climate model is crap. It is constructed from 1990 to 2030.
They completed it in 2009.
So they only have 19 years of raw data and over half that raw data was collated during one of Australia’s worst ever recorded droughts.
They did also factor in the ‘patterns’ of drought and flooding rains in the MDB but it was miserably skewed by the actual raw data they used.
So Luke, without googling, tell me how that predictive model would have radically changed if they added in the raw data from 2010 and 2011?
It’s not a test by the way 🙂
Can you explain why they didn’t even know what to do with all the water that suddenly and inconveniently turned up despite their fantastic predictive computer modeling?
You can just click on Jen’s post about NOW and SHL and see how they handled all that inconvenient water, I guess that’s not cheating because you haven’t left this site 🙂
As I have said before I have the utmost respect for genuine scientists and researchers.
I am just horrified that they have to morally bankrupt themselves at the moment because of our very expensive political obsession with climate change.
They, like us farmers in the MDB, need to be left alone to do what they were born to do.
Too bad if it doesn’t suit the current political agenda.
I’m sure the genuine scientists and researchers are just as proud of what they do as we are.
They conduct real science and honest research and we grow the food you eat.
Nicely ducked Debs. Caught in the open you simply ducked it.
“They, like us farmers in the MDB, need to be left alone to do what they were born to do.” sorry what’s that = like get billions in drought relief over decades?? Pullease. Run an over-allocated system?
Figs 1 and 2
So the MDB researchers are unaware of history are they?
http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-1%20Reports/Phase1_SynthesisReport.pdf
Luke , two other reef researchers – Dr Peter Ridd and Dr Bob Carter are both reef researchers.
Yup – they both have done research on sediments in the GBR and they both disagree with Ove as to the condition of the reef. Ove’s reply is that they don’t publish in peer reviewed journals therefore they don’t count. Yet Ove has published for Greenpeace and WWF and The GBR Marine park authority none of which were peer reviewed yet referenced countless time in the IPCC reports.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/
Ducking again Luke –
Fig1 & 2 only cover till 2009 – didn’t Debbie ask you “tell me how that predictive model would have radically changed if they added in the raw data from 2010 and 2011?”
here you go – http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=seaus&season=0112&ave_yr=T
Luke,
for you to peddle that ridiculous over allocated argument tells me you have no idea how water allocation works.
I would also add that farmers are not the ones who control the issue of water entitlements which are not the same as water allocations.
That would be water bureaucrats that you need to talk to about that.
They would be the same ones who are now trying to exonerate themselves in the new water bureaucracy. The MDBA.
I fail to understand your point about drought relief?
Are you saying thats the same as climate change funding? How?
Do you believe that there wasnt a drought? That it was just over allocation that caused the problem?
Surely not?
Thanks John,
Can you figure out how that graph and that info would cause the MDBA some angst re their own conclusions Luke? They could be honest, but I will believe that when I see it.
John – ah yes the well known two amigos who protest on cue about everything – and what research on reef bio-condition would that be John. Come on cite-up ! What’s their data on condition assessment, sediment, nutrients and herbicides. Do they have measurements?
On the latest BoM rainfall – what’s your point John – does it invalidate ANYTHING? Does the “predictive model” say it will never rain again?
Isn’t that fascinating not one comment on SEACI research. Your position is intellectually bankrupt.
Debs – those who “have it all under control” don’t need billions in drought aid. You’re living in a dream state my dear. So you think the Gwydir for example is well allocated? Essentially the long term message is unpalatable and that’s your problem.
here you go Luke
http://www.jcu.edu.au/eps/staff/JCUDEV_017772.html
“On the latest BoM rainfall – what’s your point John – does it invalidate ANYTHING? Does the “predictive model” say it will never rain again?”
Well actually yes, it missed what might have happened and what was to happen next – the figures I posted showed what Debbie suggested – the rainfall figures including 2010 and 2011. Flat Line!!
Here’s a tune for you Debbie from John Williamson. It was on the ABC Country Hour.
http://johnlsayers.com/mp3/JW.mp3
As for your JCU list – and so what? His position on bio-condition is what and backed up by what ?
John I can simple table dozens of well written data rich references in the pro case.
John – on MDB rainfall – really silly logic maybe we’ll be back in drought in 2 years and so how does your little time series inform anything? Do you think it’s always going to rain again do you?
So John where exactly does the report predict the rainfall for 2010/11 – where is this?
BTW I posted JW’s song a couple of weeks ago. Good isn’t it.
“Do you think it’s always going to rain again do you?”
yup.
why wouldn’t I Luke?
That’s always , lots every year…. is it?
No – it it’s own way – as usual.
in it’s…
Luke.
I still dont get the point about drought relief.
What dream state?
There was a drought. It is one of the worst ones we have had.
Did I dream that?
Maybe you mean that all the Australian farmers affected by drought should have been some of those 50 million climate refugees?
Maybe the ones who got affected by the following record floods could also become climate refugees?
Maybe we should all just give up and move to the cities and live on the dole?
You might get a little hungry eventually but. never mind, at least the models and their projections would be proven correct.
Debbie if you have it all under control you don’t need ongoing financial assistance to manage climate phenomena that you profess to well know about. You just want to be left alone to get on with it. So do it without assistance if you’re that good. The reality is that you are far from adapted to your climate.
Hungry – not now – 34% of fruit and 19% of vegetables consumed in Australia are imported. And plenty of food potential in northern Australia.
BTW have you read http://www.seaci.org/ will you be going to their meeting with Mal to tell them they’re liars. And how you bitterly disapprove of the work contained in the pdfs. You would rather them not do this work. Mal would like these staff to get proper jobs doing accounting and cancel their funding.
Luke,
I am sorry to inform you that you are in fact the one living in a dream state.
It truly doesn’t matter how many beautiful graphs and studies are done.
That particular reality still only perfectly resides in a computer model.
In the real world, when our eyes are open and we’re looking at real people and real places (not graphs and statistics that try to emulate and project what real people and real places will and won’t do) we actually discover that the real environment in the real world doesn’t want to co operate fully with the computer models….extremely naughty of us people and places I know….but that’s the real world not the dream world.
I absolutely believe that research and statistics and scientific studies are useful and necessary tools. I have not said at any time that: I:
bitterly disapprove of the work contained in the pdfs. or even I:
rather them not do this work.
They are however not the penultimate answer as you obviously believe they are.
Your comments about water allocation and over allocation also informs me that you have blindly accepted a false assumption about how our regulated river systems work “IN REALITY”.
The assumptions are way off and therefore so are the projected conclusions. To explain would take far too long because our disingenious bureaucrats have deliberately made water management and water policy incredibly complicated. Why?….I don’t really know but I would bet it would have a lot to do with covering their collective butts.
I probably shouldn’t ask this question but since you have brought it up:
Can you now explain why you think it’s a sensible idea for Australia to import food?
Can you explain why it’s sensible to shift food production to the North?
Do you understand that importing food we can quite easily and efficiently grow in Australia actually increases our carbon footprint?…or maybe I should say I could find you a computer model that has been peer reviewed that clearly proves this.
Do you understand that soil types and demographics and also diseases would immediately nullify efficient food production in the North? Do you understand it would also increase our carbon footprint?…or maybe once again it is incredibly easy to find computer models that prove this.
It all depends on what you’re trying to prove and what you’re trying to avoid.
You do need to wake up though Luke and pull your head out of the models and the references and accept that even though they have put in their best efforts, they’re often WRONG. Once reality and mother nature steps in, new variables stuff up the models.
The information inside a lot of those computer models are a result of someone else’s dreams.
They’re dreaming!
As far as adaptive work goes…well bingo! Maybe we’re nearly on the same page there.
I think the harshest lesson the recent drought has taught us is:
As a Nation we no longer have enough back up storage to adequately survive a prolonged drought.
Our population and production demands have outgrown our last century infratstructure and technology.
If we’re going to continue to grow and prosper, then it’s time we upgraded the infrastructure.
It’s not a good idea to cut everybody back. It never was a good idea anywhere in the whole history of the world. Countries like China and Russia and lesser known places in Asia and Asia Minor, have historical black marks forever because they attempted that very thing. Even when France tried it, they caused a nightmare for themselves.
Historically it’s also never been a good idea to expose a nation like ours to vulnerable food security. Why on earth would we even want to do that?
What on earth would that prove? What is the up side of doing that?
You want backup storage – you can pay for it. We’re sick of subsiding the MDB.
You have made no science comments on the whole thread Debbie.
Excuse me while I cut a tomato grown in Bowen, north Qld for lunch. Perhaps an Ord rock melon for afters?
You want science and social re engineering?
You pay for it, the MDB is completely sick of subsidising bureaucratic and political arse covering.
We’re also completely sick of supercilious and ill informed comments like the one you just made.
We actually produce something that is measurably useful and beneficial to Australia out here.
Do you?
We actually employ people.
Do you?
We actually create a positive GDP for Australia.
Do you?
We actually support and subsidise self important, largely unproductive, highly cynical, very ungrateful and supercilious people like you just made yourself appear to be.
So, I’m sorry, when Australia went through a drought that Australia wasn’t prepared for, the farmers needed some assistance.
If that offends you, then there is sweet FA that I can do about that.
You really and truly need to wake up.
You also need to stop pretending that you even understand what you’re talking about.
I did not say it wasn’t possible to produce food from the North. I definitely questioned the wisdom of moving more of it up there.
There are logistic, demographic, soil and disease issues that you very obviously don’t even have an inkling about.
You enjoy your tomato and your rock melon. You’re lucky there are still Australian farmers somewhere in Australia who are willing to grow them for you. If they saw that completely divisive, inappropriate and highly misinformed comment they would likely boycott you and starve you.
I see that Lukes SEACI mob use the thoroughly dishonest language of “climate change.”
Any so called scientist that stoops that sort of blatant misrepresentation doesnt deserve anything, because they are starting from the totally unsubstantiated premise that all change is as a result of us.
Although it is on a par with Gilllard and Combet talking repetitively about carbon pollution, which is obviously the advice given to them by the drones in the Department of Climate Change.
BTW you will notice Debbie that their whole premsie is also based upon GCM models, not reality viz
“In a climate modelling study, the intensification of the sub-tropical ridge could only be replicated when anthropogenic forces, including greenhouse gas emissions, were considered.”
Of course it would when its being driven to do produce this result by the way the parameters are tweaked
Exactly Malcom,
If the assumptions and the inputs are not realistic, so are the conclusions and resultant projections.
or…
Garbage in – garbage out.
The final test of any predictive theory will always be reality.
The fatal flaw of any predictive theory is incomplete or incorrect data.
Unfortunately for all of us, the AGW models are suffering from both these problems.
Reality is refusing to stay inside their parameters.
Their data is therefore obviously incomplete or incorrect.
It wouldn’t matter if they were prepared to be honest about it. We can all learn from mistakes, even eminent and well respected climate scientists can.
If they fessed up that they perhaps need to change the inputs and very possibly their basic assumptions, we could get ourselves closer to solving the climate puzzle.
There will be no one happier than farmers when that day arrives.
I am still stunned by Luke’s totally inappropriate comments.
Silly me, I thought he was genuinely interested because he so often comments.
Obviously he is only interested in scoring points and making himself look like an oh so important, know it all ,smart arse.
That’s rather disappointing.
I should know better.
I was always having to deal with smart arses in my other chosen career. (Not farming)
They always think it’s more important to score silly inconsequential points, than actually debate and discuss the topic.
The great shame is that they are often highly intelligent people and could contribute a great deal to society if they weren’t such hopelessely committed smart arses!
Sarcasm was always, and still is, the lowest form of wit.
What a pity that otherwise intelligent people resort to the gutter like that.
Even a completely unintelligent imbecile can have a go at sarcasm and suceed.
There is not much that is clever or intelligent about it.
It’s the fastest track that I know to losing respect from other people who respect intelligence.
So Luke,
I am sorry, but I have just lost respect for you.
It isn’t permanent, but you really need to rethink your totally inappropriate and sarcastic post.
It only suceeded in making you look like a sarcastic smart arse. Nothing else.
Listen to geriatric Hill crank – what a spectacle.
You lot are simply red neck hillbillies and shouldn’t get a vote.
Debbie your comments on the science are simply wanker drivel. Try reading girlie. You haven’t even made an attempt. Have you?
I just kacked over this “Of course it would when its being driven to do produce this result by the way the parameters are tweaked”
Of course you could also be thick as a plank.
So we have an incredible detective story. Lots of statistical testing. Really detailed stuff. And a FINAL analysis to see if this effect could be replicated without greenhouse forcing. And after that they claim a moderate result.
But no – Mal thinks this elaborate sequence is a conspiracy. And that they fiddled the results.
Not even a comment about your surprise on the finding. Most people who show a modicum of intelligence – respond with ” Really – how does that work and ….”
Not just knee-jerk moronic reaction and instant dismissal.
And Debs hasn’t even read it….
Luke,
I have read it and I rest my case.
As with the MDBP that based a lot of its climate modelling on this report, I seriously question the basic assumptions that underpin it.
It assumes that it is the fault of man and in this particular case, farming, that is the root of all the problem. It also assumes that legislation can fix it.
It’s ironic that I can walk outside my back door right now and take a photo of a massive rice harvester, harvesting the first crop in six years, right alongside a cacophony of native fauna and fauna that we also haven’t seen in over 6 years.
The irony? As a nation we have spent a mind boggling amount of time trying to solve the wrong problem and using the wrong resources to do it.
While we have all been arguing about it, the problem that we’re supposed to be fixing has just been fixed.
Our natural environmental asets have just proved in a most spectucular fashion that they are perfectly capable of surviving a prolonged drought.
It is actually humans and their assets that can’t cope.
I also believe that real data that is now available from 2010 and 2011 has buggered up the major projections that these reports made.
2010 and 2011 inconveniently operated outside of the models’ parameters.
Sarcasm and smart arse behaviour is not a good look and rather counter productive.
For all you know, others who comment here could be way better read and far more experienced than you.
They may consider your comments could only come from someone as thick as a plank.
I am not dismissing the work, I am pointing out that it is not the be all and end all. There is still way more to be done.
To argue otherwise is actually just knee-jerk moronic reaction from my perspective.
It’s broken and it needs fixing.
I’m sorry that Mother Nature didn’t cooperate with the AGW models. She’s a bit like that. She’s no more your friend than she is mine.
I have no more hope at this point of accuratately predicting what she’ll do next than you do.
At least I’m honest about that.
We have recognised some patterns and some symptoms, I think that’s a good thing.
We are nowhere near cracking the puzzle.
It is an extraordinary conceit to believe that a bureaucracy in Canberra might manage nature better than nature.
That is just plain wrong.
I don’t care how much science and social engineering mumbo jumbo you quote at me.
That basic assumption is indefensible.
“It is an extraordinary conceit to believe that a bureaucracy in Canberra might manage nature better than nature.” oh well tell that to agricultural scientists. Nature must be pissed at the BT cotton.
Luke,
I work with Agricultural scientists all the time. Many of them.
None of them would disagree with that comment.
Surely you don’t believe that a bureaucracy in Canberra can legislate to manage and control nature?
That’s a sick notion.
It’s a pity it’s also a basic assumption sitting at the bottom of a lot of the climate science.
Nature doesn’t actually get pissed.
Nature couldn’t give a flying rip about the BT cotton.
Nature also couldn’t give a flying rip about the predictive modeling either.
That would be humans that do that. Haven’t you noticed?
This human is still mighty pissed at the MDBA and their pathetic attempt at peer review.
Especially Prof Grafton peer reviewing his own work that claims only 800 jobs would be lost from the MDB if they took over a third of the productive water.
If these conceited fools get their way, you will have refugees.
I guess that would make it a self fulfilling, doomsday prophecy.
just a quick copy paste from the SEACI Flyer.
Now does that sound like some one who is confident in their science Luke?
Well Johnny that’s actually saying AGW is likely to be changing your baseline. And you didn’t know half these words until recently did you?
Nature loves you Debs – that’s why you have droughts and floods. Debs poor policy is poor policy – don’t blame science eh? Just don’t expect me to subsidise your inefficiency and resource degradation – we don’t need your rust belt produce dearie.
No John,
That sounds remarkably like bureaucratic arse covering!
SEACI have done an excellent job of recording and graphing until 2009.
I would imagine as Luke has said that they are also working on current figures.
They fall over when they try to add in the AGW theory to appease their government funders and then immediately cover their arses in statements like the ones you have just highlighted.
It is meaningless twaddle that they then have to keep defending because too many people are recognising that it meaningless twaddle!
Luke wants to put these reports up as the be all and end all of projective modeling.
They are not successful with projections.
They are however a useful tool that we can keep updating to help us better understand the world around us.
I do not blame the actual researchers and scientists for this problem.
They have ‘sold their souls’ to a certain extent however.
Well of course they were working on figures to date. And how does a single year change anything?
Debs when you build a dam – do you think you would look at last years rainfall or the last 120 years or so? Your logic is that everything depends on the last year. Pullease.
The analysis of the data stands – sorry it offends you. It’s called cognitive dissonance.
In fact you ought be excited that they are working out the mechanisms. Knowing some of these people – for you to say they’re cooking the results to appease government is offensive.
They’re not successful with projections? how do you know – where’s your analysis? you have no idea.
Luke,
I don’t blame science. I never have.
I definitely blame poor policy.
Current policy dictates that anything that has anything to do with climate study, must somehow insert that the theory of climate change and AGW could have something to do with it and therefore if that’s the case then this is what might happen and therefore Government must legislate to control it.
It’s not cognitive dissonance Luke.
To re use your own terminology it is meaningless twaddle.
It is also a basic assumption sitting at the bottom of the studies.
Unfortunately, otherwise good researchers and good scientists have to regurgitate this crap in order to keep their jobs.
And yes, something very similar is also done by oil companies etc and is just as loathesome.
Their motives are different but the result is the same.
And no, a lot of the time they are not successful with projections.
We could all have been nearly as successful by tossing a coin.
I don’t knock them for trying, but they are definitely having trouble with nature stepping outside of their parameters because, Luke, nature loves them no more than nature loves me.
Nature doesn’t particularly love anyone. Haven’t you noticed?
Maybe you should pull your head out of your computer and have a look around.
And Luke, when we build dams, the idea is to store water in times of excess (like we have now) so that we can use the water when the inevitable droughts or low inflow cycles happen.
It has little to do with the last 120 years rainfall and everything to do with looking to a productive and prosperous future.
The records of the last 120 years can help us to decide where the best inflows are likely to occur.
They can also indicate where wastage has occured and where we need to work on fixing and upgrading it.
If we use the records to prove there is no point in doing anything about water storage and conservation because we’re all doomed anyway, then we are signing a death warrant for MDB agriculture and even the expansion of inland communities. What on earth are we spending $millions on regional development for if the other arm is working on killing it?
Like that’s a good prognosis?
Added to that we now have people like Prof Quentin Grafton who thinks it’s perfectly OK to fiddle with graphs and project them out 20 years to prove that EVENTUALLY there would only be 800 people left without employment, if everything stayed the same and the assumptions that he started with were actually correct in the first place.
OH! How impossibly clever.
He also made his graphs indicate that regional communities in the MDB could happily survive a 70% cut to water.
Added to that we have Prof Kingston telling the Windsor inquiry that he doesn’t care where his food is grown as long as it’s grown sustainably. He also said that’s because he’s a global citizen with global culinary tastes.
HUH?
How does he intend to legislate that we only import sustainably grown food?
Oh yes, that’s right, he also stated that when they did their report they forgot to consider the people who may be affected.
YOU THINK????
So building dams now has nothing to do with rainfall record eh? hmmmmm that’s novel.
“The records of the last 120 years can help us to decide where the best inflows are likely to occur.” not according to your logic – it’s all a mystery
Luke,
If you substitute ‘little’ for ‘nothing’ which is what I actually wrote and then added the rest of the sentence, then yes.
It isn’t novel Luke, it just depends on what you’re trying to achieve and what you’re trying to prove and indeed what you may be trying to avoid.
There is also a massive difference between ‘likely’ and a 21 year projection that claims something quite different.
If you want to defend them, you go right ahead.
If you think that they have the penultimate answer, then I am questioning your ability to intelligently critique and review predictive models or even your ability to understand how it’s possible to prove almost anything at all if you adjust the input data or start with your answer already assumed.
Have a look at Grafton’s excellent example in the MDBP. His is a 20 year predictive model.
You can also look it up in the Wentworth report.
Oh, the ACF and WWF have got it too, so you shouldn’t have any problem tracking it down.
He expertly hijacked some stuff from SEACI and ABARES as well….oh and the CSIRO.
It’s not all a mystery Luke.
It greatly amuses me how you accuse me of stating such absolutes and then think that actually proved a point. I would also have to question your communication skills when you go for the smart arse,sarcastic option. Tut tut….I would have scored you very poorly in University debates.
I definitely said we have started to recognise some patterns and even some symptoms.
I also said I think it’s a good thing.
You’re not paying attention Luke.
I may appear to be obtuse to you, but that was not my intention.
I apologise if it’s difficult for you to understand.
“You’re not paying attention Luke.
I may appear to be obtuse to you, but that was not my intention.
I apologise if it’s difficult for you to understand.”
classic. Thanks Debbie – it’s been King Kong and Fay Wray, encounter.
We can all relax, it is most unlikely than Greenland will melt anytime soon and as a consequence no refugees.
https://events.icecube.wisc.edu/indico/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=19&sessionId=7&confId=34
O/T
Jen if you could organize ‘most recent comments’ as a side bar, it should increase traffic and help people remain on topic.