“THE very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice.
“Yet, as anyone who has served on a consensus committee knows, much of what is most interesting about a subject gets left out of the final report. For months, our geoengineering group argued about almost every issue conceivably related to establishing a research programme. Many ideas failed to make the report — not because they were wrong or unimportant, but because they didn’t attract a political constituency in the group that was strong enough to keep them in. The commitment to consensus therefore comes at a high price: the elimination of proposals and alternatives that might be valuable for decision-makers dealing with complex problems.
“Some consensus reports do include dissenting views, but these are usually relegated to a section at the back of the report, as if regretfully announcing the marginalized views of one or two malcontents. Science might instead borrow a lesson from the legal system. When the US Supreme Court issues a split decision, it presents dissenting opinions with as much force and rigour as the majority position. Judges vote openly and sign their opinions, so it is clear who believes what, and why — a transparency absent from expert consensus documents. Unlike a pallid consensus, a vigorous disagreement between experts would provide decision-makers with well-reasoned alternatives that inform and enrich discussions as a controversy evolves, keeping ideas in play and options open. That is something on which we should all agree…
From ‘The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree’ by Daniel Sarewitz, Nature News. Nature 478, 7 (2011). Published online October 5, 2011.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well thanks Daniel – that’s a lot of help (not!).
So everyone gets a chance to play Galileo eh? Any dope can have a shot ? Who exactly is classed as “an expert”. Look at AGWscepticism as one example for the greatest collection of faux experts ever.
What is a government to do then when seeking expert scientific advice on greenhouse gas emissions, genetically modified organisms, pesticide and drug safety, water resources, forestry, biodiversity conservation, mining, coal seam gas etc etc ….
have 10 options on the table that contradict each other. A recipe for policy paralysis.
Face it – it’s all just another justification to give politically motivated minority dissenters a platform.
Thanks Daniel and Jen. Very appropriate.
Smart people would agree.
Pity Luke can’t see past his ideology:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/science-politics-make-bad-bedfellows/story-e6frg6zo-1226167040617
Luke, I have no problem with Governments calling for input from all suitably qualified experts in climate-relevant disciplines.
However, all Western governments actually take input from is their grant-fuelled paid mouthpieces.
It’s a gravy-train that is doing a great disservice to science in general, and the whole community.
We should turn off the existing taxpayer teat to assumed “global warming” research, and the corrupted peer-review regime in this field, and call tenders from all qualified sources to submit their findings of empirical facts – no models allowed.
Well there are virtually no qualified sceptic climate experts in Australia. Oh what a problem.
Instead you would like a sceptic rabble of ill-informed ideas to be funded for junk science?
Come on ! Indeed when they do have a go we end up with that McLean et al paper. Didn’t get 100 yards.
Corrupted peer-reviewed research – “all Western Goverments” – what a laugh …. it’s the old sceptic meme – there’s this big world-wide conspiracy that ….. pullease !
No models allowed – how amazing – so Mick (understandably) from the Hills – how would propose to research complex phenomena?
“Well there are virtually no qualified sceptic climate experts in Australia. Oh what a problem.”
Well there are none like this one, anyway:
http://www.gamersgame.com/blog/921071
The scientific process has been corrupted without a doubt. We now have the government funding driving outcomes for scientists. The CSIRO once such a deservedly respected instituition is now a mouthpiece for the environment and government policy.
I wonder if people will ever again hold science in high esteem? I certainly dont. It is used to “prove” any number of different opinions…often at the same time.
10-15 years ago I would never have dreamed I would say these things. I believed all decisions should be based on reason and science. Now I am just sceptical about nearly everything I get told by anybody in “Authority”…I do of course believe reason and logic should still be used…just dont rely on other peoples!!
Luke, there you go trying to defend the indefensible.
Your approach mirrors that of Gillard trying to spin her Malaysia debacle – the ‘departmental experts’ say this is the way to go.
Climate “science” needs to be taken out of the general body of scientific studies,and considered seperately, because so many of its publicity-seeking practitioners have demonstrated a clear propensity for “spinning” their findings, and even attempts to manipulate the scientific process (Climategate, anyone?)
As for models, you know I was referring only to climate change models, where by admission, so many assumptions have been made about the way the natural cycles work, without empirical facts as a basis for such assumptions. Christ, we don’t even know how to predict the formation, behaviour and effects of clouds yet, but we blithely model climate change projections factoring in positive forcing from clouds.
It’s time to blow the full-time whistle on this season of climate “science”, start another comp. with fresh teams and players, and hold all matches out in the open air, and televised for all to watch.
The Gore/Pauchari league will inevitably lose out to World Series Climate (pity KP isn’t around to see it).
‘It’s time to blow the full-time whistle on this season of climate “science”…
I agree Mick but the Klimatariat is very powerful, so we may have to wait until after the double D election, won with a mandate…. then give Hockey a crowbar to dismantle the structure.
In the wider world, a cooling in the northern hemisphere will reflect badly on the corrupted scientists.
Talking of corrupt practice, there’s a new book out about the IPCC and it might be worth a read.
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1318551567&sr=8-4
Well there you are Mick – climategate – what a load of nonsense. What a massive fabricated sceptic fair tale. You learnt what – real climate scientists hold many sceptics in contempt for their tactics?
Assumptions about natural cycles – well no. Clouds – no.
So Mick – just in this field of science its a big global conspircacy is it? Ho ho ho.
And when’s the last time you ever read a climate science paper Mick – like NEVER ! Gore and Pauchari do not produce climate research. More uninformed dross from you.
Luke
you are babbling.
“its a big global conspiracy is it?”
No I don’t think so, at least not in the strict sense of “let us join together and do this and that to destroy the world” kind of conspiracy
But once the word got around that grant money is flowing to climate research it became a
self perpetuating process.
Scientist are human too, with all the human needs and desires, some even maybe more desires than the common folk, why would they give up fame and fortune when a small lie here a bit of distortion there gets you some more fame and funding?
Gee, Luke, your dismissals of my observations are so full of substance and inarguable facts, I’ll have to take the rest of the weekend to compose a reply. (/sarc)
And yes – I read climate science papers (even go to RealClimate and SkepticalScience (although I always feel a little dumbed down afterwards). Thing is, Luke, I read both sides of the hypothesis, such as it is, and then consider whether the info being proffered is from a scientifically sceptical perspective, that is challenging asserted ‘facts’ with new discoveries, or just more on-the-bandwagon boilerplate to satisfy the grant source, and get a press release into the media. So much of what is published in ‘peer-reviewed’ climate literature is unfortunately in the latter category.
You should try this approach Luke – it’s very liberating.
I will admit though that I don’t read what Greg Combet’s department sends me in the mail. Do you find much much to cite in this literature, Luke?
Until Monday then . . . . .
And so Mick what was your latest scientific paper you read on climate change in Australia?
Oh gawd – an opportunity for a pissing contest about who’s read what climate papers.
Death by weblinks.
Not going there with you Luke – it’s time I’ll never get back in my life, and I’ve already expended far too much leisure time reading (and even paying for) pre-concluded missives from research ‘teams’. My hard drive can’t take any more – I need space for my work, rather than indulgences in consuming stuff people are getting paid to write, while I’m not getting paid to read it.
So I’m waiting for the conclusive findings either way that shut down this whole sorry saga (industry?). When this is produced, I bet we won’t have to pay to read it.
I can sense remotely how bored Jennifer’s other guests here must be with this exchange, it’s not going anywhere conclusive now, and never will no matter how many papers we each cite.
Toby robertson, unfortunately that is just how I feel too.
Depressing isn’t it!
el gordo: Donna Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC is well worth reading. She’s made it available for $4.99 ! You can read a sample here
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1318551567&sr=8-4#reader_B005UEVB8Q
You can download a .pdf version from here https://www.aplusdownload.com/cgi-bin/apluspro/scripts/apluspro.cgi?action=4&item_number=iap0001&iap0001_qty=1&cd=iocmvjwgc also for $4.99.
Once you start you won’t put it down 🙂
I’ve had a glance at Donna’s book,it seems very interesting and when I get the chance I’ll read it.
I get too busy at times and just have other jobs that I have to do.
Luke I’ve always conceded that a doubling of co2 must cause some warming but until we understand clouds, the sun, ocean oscillations etc a lot more I’m sure we are wasting our time in Australia trying to mitigate AGW.
Even our chief Commissioner Tim tells the same tale and his example covers the entire planet not emitting any more human co2 emissions from today.
So if the entire world can’t make a difference for hundreds or perhaps a thousand years what is the use of Australia reducing our 1.3% by 5%? As well to meet our 5% reduction in the future we’ll have to buy carbon credits from now corrupted markets which just makes the whole business more idiotic and ridiculous.
Let’s save our scarce and borrowed funds for all the other expenditure we’ll have to make just to keep the country running and hopefully one day we may even run a surplus budget again.
We keep hearing that Australia is experiencing the best terms of trade for many years ( some say at least 100 years) so what happens to our debt when we really do come up against a real downturn?
‘I can sense remotely how bored Jennifer’s other guests here must be with this exchange…’
Carry on Mick, we enjoy the argument.
Donna’s book puts it so well and underlines why we are sceptics.
When the CAGWers keep feeding us their authoritarian points of view with little room for uncertainty, more experienced scientists and generally, older people, become a little dubious of this disconnect with reality.
And then when it is revealed that it is mostly the result of GCMs, uncertainty escalates.
OK Mick – threshold test – given you’ve wasted so much time and are so well informed – what’s the direction of Australia’s current climate research effort. No essay – just a sentence or two. And what for you would be the highlight of the last few years?
A degree in Womens’s studies – hohohohoho
Don’t you love SourceWatch – it reckons ….
Donna Laframboise is a former journalist and a photographer. She is a global warming skeptic based in Toronto Canada. She runs the website ‘No Frakking Consensus’ and is the creator of noconsensus.org. She has a degree in Women’s Studies, attended the University of Toronto (1989).
Dishonest Blogger
In the world of climate sceptic blogging Laframboise is at the lower end of the spectrum. Most of her work is poorly sourced and hypocritical. But she is also not afraid to try her hand at dishonesty, such as an article entitled ‘BP, Greenpeace and the Big Oil Jackpot’. She suggests the oil industry is donating large sums of money to environmental causes, for reasons unkown. In particular she implies Greenpeace recieves large cash donations from BP.[1]. An entirely untrue claim because Greenpeace are quite clear that they do not accept funding from governments, corporations or political parties.[2].
Another of her childish stances is to criticise IPCC authors for being too young. It turns out however that the youngest lead author is Richard Tol an economist who takes a contrarian view helpful to the fossil fuel lobby, a detail which Laframboise neglects to mention. [3]
Quote
“I think capitalism, globalization, and biotechnology are the best way to cure widespread poverty on this planet.” [4]
Ah yes …. LOLZ
I dunno Luke, perhaps more genuine, dedicated scientists (and I do accept they are out there) getting their research into to the public domain, because god knows they won’t be published in the climate peer-review journals if they aren’t singing the IPCC tune.
The highlight of the past few years ? The exposures of all the alarmist shonks using ‘science’ to scare the bejeesus out of young schoolkids, and other naieve members of society.
The lowlight ? – absolutely no accountability for their deceptions.
What I’d like to see happen next? Climate grants seekers conform to the same standards of probity, disclosure and accountability as company directors issuing a prospectus for capital-raising. That is, ASIC-style regulation and enforcement to protect taxpayers’ funds. Applied to both grant-seekers, as well as the agencies who dole out our tax money. Ever had to put your name to a prospectus, Luke? Those of us who have know you daren’t make one unequivocable statement unless you are prepared to take the attempted fraud investigation, and possible fines and jail time. You go through every word of that publication 20 times to ensure you have rock-solid evidence of everything you assert, and where you have any doubts, you highlight and heavily qualify your basis for such assertions. And you can’t just refer to other prospectuses to make your case, either.
I’m dreamin’ I know, but I reckon only such ‘reform’ of the whole climate research grants and peer-review industry will bring it back to productive, credible science, and chase away the carpetbaggers who have attached themselves to this field. (I’d nominate who I’m referring to here, but after the recent Bolt legal case, we can’t assume our previous understanding of free speech.)
Typical Luke slagging off at some one with a cut and paste. She’s actually a photographer/journalist – Her photography is here http://www.tripodgirl.com/main.php
Why don’t you cough up the $4.99 and read the book for yourself?
I’ve just finished reading it and it’s a great read. It’s impeccably referenced to the original sources throughout. I agree with her conclusion that the IPCC must be disbanded.
BTW Jennifer is listed at the end as one of the people she send bouquets of thanks.
She also had 43 citizens from 12 countries help her track down every paper referenced in the Climate Bible (her word for AR4).
The results
Summary of Findings
UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card
1. all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
2. 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
3. IPCC chairman’s claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
4. each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
5. 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F (59% and below)
BTW Luke – the young person you refer to is this guy:
Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23,
completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author.
Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts. [FOOTNOTE 4-1]
Nor is he an isolated case. Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam.
In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001.
How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services.
It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.
So Mick – how shoddy- you can’t answer the question. As I thought. You’re clueless on what is going on in climate science. Your source presumably Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt – rofl – what a bunch on bunk merchants !
So just more sceptic shonkery …
and this ” they won’t be published in the climate peer-review journals if they aren’t singing the IPCC tune.” HUH ? excuse me? are you actually silly ?
John Sayers – nofrakking consensus is about as skanky and sleazy as you can get – sucked right in matey. But from your previous form why would I be surprised. Ask the fox about hen-house design !?
And all of this of course germane to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of alternative viewpoints to an IPCC consensus panel to inform policy. Not worth two knobs of goat poop.
All just part of the dishonest rightist war on science.
What is with you warmists Luke? whenever some one publishes stuff you don’t like you attack them personally.
Speaking of unanswered questions, Luke, you neglected to answer the question I firstly asked you –
“do you find anything to cite in the literature Greg Combet’s department sends us all in the mail?”
After all, Greg’s department is the apex, the peak body, the ultimate directorate of conclusions about climate change research in the country.
I think you blokes should forget about trying to get any sense out of Luke, he just gets more strident as you pile on more facts.
Most of us are alarmed about the Ipcc and their modeled nonsense especially when they use inexperienced, unpublished and uncredentialed youngsters to write some of it.
But Luke couldn’t care less, it’s just another reason to unfairly shoot the messenger. Donna gets abused and is verballed for showing the world how corrupt and wrong the Ipcc is when they claim everything is above board and peer reviewed.
It’s great to see that this Ebook version is available for only $4.99 because more people will be able to get more facts to properly condemn this fraudulent bible of AGW.
But as more of the con is exposed Luke and his fellow lefties will get more strident and upset because they want the cover up to continue forever.
Well wot tripe – there’s much more to modelling in IPCC reports. More rightist bilge from Neville. And look at the little ranter go – they’re corrupt and frauds are they. And and and – won’t the sceptics have fun with peer review – coz they don’t publish ! LMAO !
But anyway Mick – I see you’re actually very opinionated about Aussie climate research but seem unable to string a sentence together. Am I surprised – nugh – just another denier. But on Combet’s stuff – well it’s probably PR paff and I haven’t read it. Remember too I’m not supporting a unilateral carbon tax.
Well for the zillionth time I’ll ask again, what would you do Luke?
Just suppose you’re the supreme dictator of the world and every country and all their citizens had to obey your commands, then how would you mitigate AGW?
It wouldn’t take a nano second for just about everyone to start to rebel I know, but suppose they didn’t, how would you fix things?
Money’s no problem and all the scientists must bend to your will and work to provide the planet with the best possible climate and reduce co2 to a manageable level of say 350 ppmv.
How long would it take and how would you do it? Just remember that northern Australia was a drier place when co2 levels were about 290ppmv to 310ppmv , ditto Australia, ditto southern Australia, ditto south Australia, ditto MDB, ditto western Australia ( but not SWWA) but not Tassie and SE Australia was line ball.
Righto mighty Luke you control the levers so tell us how, we await your wise and just leadership.
gee whiz Luke,
It’s perfectly scientifically OK for researchers and theorists to admit they’re wrong or to accept new evidence. In fact I would agree with Daniel that it is not scientific to do otherwise.
I would also suggest that imperfect science should not be used to dictate policy.
It ends up with many of our ‘modellers’ trying to argue that reality is wrong and the projective models are correct…even when emerging evidence is suggesting otherwise. They in fact end up behaving like most bureaucrats who will scurry to cover their backsides and do almost anything to prove that they did not make any mistakes….even lie!
We don’t have 50 million climate refugees from the places they were supposed to come from (according to the projections), we don’t have alarming sea level rises (according to the projections), the alps are still covered in snow…in October (not like the projections) , all our dams are full to overflowing , the MDB has had 2 spectacular flooding seasons accross the whole basin but also significantly in the southern parts (contradictory to the projections) and even Lake Eyre is looking absolutely amazing….and except for the climate refugee bit….that’s just in Oz.
So maybe….just maybe…..the projections were perhaps a little faulty? And maybe…..just maybe…..it wasn’t something to do with man made C02 but perhaps something else that we don’t understand yet?
In closely settled and completely altered urban centres, the local climate has been altered somehow…but the rest?…it is looking less likely that man made C02 is the culprit or perhaps not as big a culprit as the science theorised.
It’s OK….we’re allowed to make mistakes…..that’s how all of us learn….even scientists. When we admit to our mistakes it also becomes possible to fix them.
( that last sentence was just a little homespun country wisdom for you 🙂 )
Utter rot Debbie – where is your IPCC referenced science citation that we should at this point have “alarming” sea level rises and snow-free Alps? Where is your Australian science publication that says it would never rain again?
Perhaps your bullshit is a little faulty eh?
Debbie is perfectly correct, observation shows that we are entering a cooler phase and that CO2 (even though it continues an upward trend) is having little or no impact on climate.
Luke, I mentioned before that we can expect a decade of ‘good seasons’ in Australia, so we know the cycle of drought and flood is continuing normally. The warministas have failed to make their case for higher temperatures and longer droughts.
Well Luke Timmy certainly made a point of Oz receiving less rainfall when exactly the opposite has taken place. He’s now chief climate Commissioner for our Juliar’s idiot govt, no less.
The CSIRO and Bom thought the idiot Al Gore had got it “about right” when AIT was released here and he shows heaps of SLR as part of his BS in the movie.
Just in the last few hours we have Mike Kelly ( Eden Monaro ) tweeting about how they’ve just saved the snowfall over Oz because they’ve just passed the idiot co2 tax.
So we reduce 1.3% of global emissions by 5% by 2020 which will be surpassed by 80 hours of China’s emissions and we’ve fixed the snowfall in Oz have we Luke?
What is Mike’s level of maths understanding Luke, surely not primary school, more like pre Kindy level I’d say.
We’ve been told that Hansen was one of the top advisors for Gore while he was making AIT and the CSIRO’s Pearman has advised him as well, so why haven’t we been conned?
See Mike Kellys comment on snow at bottom of this article, let’s hope he doesn’t compete for brain of Oz in the near future.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/im_not_sure_this_will_win_over_the_voters_labor_needs/
BTW there have been scientists musing in the UK just two or three yeasrs ago that young children born today would never know what normal snowfall was like as they were growing up. Since then there has been at least three very heavy years of snowfall over the Uk and now some other scientists are musing about another little ice age.
Also Bolt interviewed Will Steffen recently on his radio show and Steffen got into a disagreement with Bolt about China’s soaring co2 emissions.
He actually claimed the levels were not soaring in China, (GEEEEZZZ) but that they were the green example for the rest of the world to follow. I mean where do they find these people? Good level of maths there too eh Luke?
Of course China uses zilch solar and wind power and most of their greener energy comes from Hydro.
Yes Neville – China has added 192GW!! of Hydro power with most of it coming from the new 3 gorges dam. This gives China a high renewable energy rating thus everyone makes the outrageous statement that China is leading in renewable energy.
When was the last dam approved in Australia?
Good point John,
How absurd that dams and hydro are a ‘no go’ according to our Oz environmentalists yet they also claim that China is a world leader because of theirs.
Is that bi polar or is that bi polar?
BTW – that 192GW of Hydro is greater than all the US and Canadian dams combined!!
HMMM Luke?
Did I say ‘snow free’ Alps or ‘never rain again,?
UMMMM NO!
That would be you ‘projecting’ again.
What I did say is that in contrast to the ‘projections’ we have had more rain, more snow and more flooding.
The projections said ‘ significantly less’ and ‘less likely’ and ‘indicates less’ etc etc…by now (2010 and onwards).
Also…where are all those climate refugees? We do indeed have some….but not for the reasons or the places that were ‘projected’ due to AGW research and modelling.
Just as an aside….don’t you also think it is amazing that the Great Barrier Reef is still OK despite 50 years worth of ‘projections’ re it’s imminent disaster? Check Jen’s article re this topic.
Also…as late as last week I heard Bob Brown quoting the ‘science’ about the dangers of sea level rises and Australia’s heavily populated eastern seaboard….even though the original ‘projections’ are not coming to pass.
“we don’t have alarming sea level rises (according to the projections), the alps are still covered in snow…in October (not like the projections) ,”
So Debbie – unable to quote. No answer. No substantiation. You just made it up.
Bob brown is NOT the science.
Pls provide the science quotations or I’ll have to assume you’re a fabricator.
Debbie the scientists Bolt interviewed a fortnight ago made a point about SLs dropping around Australia for nearly 5,000 years.
So we know that the early Holocene optimum was warmer than today and this can be shown from the Catalyst ABC program where they show that SLs at Sydney were 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm
I’m not sure but the last Ice age Sydney SLs must have been 100+ metres lower about 15,000 to 20,000 years ago.
Then when it started to warm the rise must have been incredible over a few thousand years and certainly during the warmer Optimum temps.
Ice cores at Greenland and other cores from South America show that those sites warmed after the Younger Dryas about 11,500 years ago at an incredibly fast rate.
It’s hard to believe but at those sites temps increased by 10c in just 10 years or 1c a year for a decade.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
Makes our 0.7c temp increase over the last 100+ look a bit wimpy?
Debbie and John here’s a sane CSIRO man who knows it’s nonsense. His family has owned the same property for 60 years and the SL has remained the same.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/seen_too_much_to_scare_again/
Luke here’s a good group for you to BAA along with. The McKibben warmist and his delusional Sheeple would fit you like a glove.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_baaing_so_progressive/
Luke,
There is still a full snow cover right down to the end of the ski runs at Perisher. There is stll a huge blanket all over the majority of the Alps. Go have a look at the snow cams if you don’t believe me….they record what is actually happening at the moment IN REALITY! It doesn’t look anything at all like the projective models said it should like by now (by 2010 and onwards)
And you’re right…Brown is not the science….however he was QUOTING the IPPC science….so your point is therefore what?
You are not the science either….you just quote it ad nauseum from your preferred sources just like he does. It is no different.
Which science quotations do you want from me Luke?
There are now literally thousands of them and they are all starting to contradict each other. Jen has posted many of them at this blog let alone going to many other sources.
You seem to faithfully and naively believe that climate modelling is some type of untouchable, irrefutable discipline that only the people who compose them could possibly understand.
In your arguments it appears you believe the rest of us are just too stupid to possibly understand these rarified climate modellers and the untouchable work they have done.
You realise that business people use projective modelling all the time don’t you? They are also fully aware how easy they are to ‘tweak’ depending on whom they are presenting them to.
Have a look at both sides of parliament with their projective models re the carbon tax….both done by totally reputable sources….and gee….look how completely different their conclusions and their projections are…..how could that possibly happen do you think Luke?
Think about that one carefully. Why do we use projective models in the political arena? What are the people who prepare them asked to do by the people who pay them?
Same thing happens in the corporate world Luke.
In fact the same thing happens in our business….we model projections on our farming business and we continually update them. We also ‘tweak’ them a little depending on whether we’re presenting them to our financiers or tax accountants or agronomists or even the DPI. None of them are necesarily right or wrong….they just focus on different aspects or give more wieght to different variables.
The real answer is rarely found in one of them….once the season is over, we usually find the real time data figures are different….sometimes that is good news and sometimes it is not. We just update the models with the real figures and then move on.
Modelling is not some untouchable discipline….that is such complete nonsense and your continual harping about it is just amusing me.
The true purpose of modelling is to use historical data to see if a pattern can be detected.
Then if a pattern is recognised, the modelling is used to ‘project’ into the future.
THEN……AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT…..the projections MUST be tested against real time data. If they don’t match up THEN THE MODELS ARE FAULTY….not the real time data.
At the moment there are insane amounts of money being spent on trying to prove that the models are perfect / conclusive and the real time data is faulty.
That is not good scientific practice (as Daniel points out) in fact it is completely absurd.
And I repeat….it’s perfectly OK to make mistakes….it is in fact the only way we really learn anything new.
I am not making this up BTW…We just happen to understand that modelling is a very useful tool to help us understand the world around us…because we use them all the time for all sorts of different reasons (even our local climate :-)).
Because we do that, we also understand they are not prophetic and they are not infallible…they’re just useful and helpful.
So after yet another long winded essay from Debbie we now know she has not read any source material. Preferring to rely on blog slops as source. Sigh.
Debs also unable to understand the most basic on inter-annual variants – the ENSO – anti-ENSO effect on climate trends – double sigh
Debs might have discussed interesting work such as http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2005/nicholls1.pdf but she didn’t – triple sigh
Tell us Debs have you digested http://www.seaci.org/events/2011workshop/presentations/index.html (it’s a thing called contemporary research vis a vis blog slops)
Good job missing the point Luke. Tweak and sigh away. Of course there are variables. The C02 A G W signal is getting progressively lost in the variables and all the other noise.
Did you look at the snow cams?
Good job of ducking the question Debs. Face it – you are clueless about real climate science but have lots of opinions about what is supposedly says, having read nothing of note. How poor.
You are a cold, hard soul Luke. I pity you.
So you’ve read it all have you? please tell me where it says `1998 – 2011 would be flatline temperature. – Please tell me where it says ocean temps will……. why do I bother…. humph.
This co2 tax is a fraud/ con/ lie. Simple maths allows anyone to state this obvious truth.
But now this fraud, con, lie is to be funded through like minded sheep pens by the taxpayer.
We know it’s a lie just using simple maths and yet like minded sheep are funded by the poor taxpayer to ” stop global warming.” Yes stop global warming.
I hope you’re proud of your Baaing efforts Luke, you must one of the best groupthink bleaters we’ve yet discovered. Just a pity about the facts though.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labors_greek_chorus_paid_for_by_you/
John Sayers – better go tune your gee-tar mate – this is what the data sets look like http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti
Try not be so misleading in your sophistry eh?
Interesting post from Frank Lasner at Jo Nova’s site. Let’s hope the La Nina doesn’t develop into another biggy like last year. That was the strongest in the last 100 years at least.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/a-monster-la-nina-in-the-making/#more-18371
John Sayers to Luke – “why do I bother ? ”
That’s where I ultimately arrived at too, John.
Luke is the modern day equivalent of those spittle-flecked ranters who used to commandeer the soapbox and hold aloft their bible and selectively quote endless passages (always citing book, chapter and verse of course) to an audience who couldn’t quite believe any sane person could be so zealous about a publication of such dubious historical or predictive accuracy.
The disciple’s angle was always one of doom and gloom for mankind of course, never any good news.
These days it’s done with selective weblinks, but the religous fervour is the same.
In the end, though, most of the audience just drifts away scratching their heads, shrugging their shoulders, and goes about living their lives. The real world (climate) also just goes about doing its thing.
I answered the question Luke, I just chose to answer it my way not yours.
It appears more likely that you just don’t like my answer.
I pointed out quite clearly that there are SOOOO many ways to reference that they end up contradicting each other….and therefore proving very little.
My point remains that the projective modelling is being used inappropriately and in a manner that they were not intended.
Good scientists (and there are actually more of them than not) know this too.
It is also one of the major points that Daniel was making.
Casting aspersions on my reading/comprehension abilities (or lack thereof) is just an ineffective and completely unsubstantiated personal attack. For all you know I may be even more literate and better informed than you :-)….Or I may not….I certainly wouldn’t attempt to guess because I don’t have enough evidence to say so one way or the other.
It also says more about your personality than it does mine.
You were correct you know….Bob Brown is not the science….he does however QUOTE the science and is one of the worst abusers of those projective models.
Unfortunately, he is not the only one.
Those models are not prophetic and they were not intended to be.
They are very useful however and if our politicians and our ‘political process’ would use them appropriately as very useful tools…..we wouldn’t be arguing.
We love the BOM site and the work they continue to do. They have helped us farmers a great deal.
We also love much of the work that CSIRO, ABARES etc do.
We know however, as they do, that the information cannot be relied on as truly prophetic because our climate, our weather, our commodity markets , our waterways, our soils etc… operate in ways that we still don’t understand and therefore still can’t accurately predict.
The models are particularly useful as checks and balances against real time data.
They become even more useful as we update them.
You are basically trying to defend the indefensible.
Those models have been used to dictate policy and we now have a political process in place that will do almost anything to prove that the models are indeed prophetic and emerging real time data is somehow just a ‘blip’ or a ‘noise’ or numerous other totally pathetic excuses.
Essentially they are trying to disprove what’s happening in reality….in favour of the projective models.
Debbie – the very simple point is that at a minimum we should be quoting the IPCC report on things like sea level rise not what Bob Brown or Tim Flannery thinks it is.
Off topic is actually a new review on the subject which is worth a look. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml
John and Mick simply don’t get it – it is simply not decent to make up what the science is saying or to quote an AGW personality as source. It misrepresents the science position. It’s not about being an ideologue at all.
It is also unreasonable to confound the climate science position with policy options on mitigation and carbon taxes. The climate science is the climate science. Unpalatable or unworkable or even silly policy responses are NOT the fault of the science. The physics is simply the physics.
And this goes to the heart of this thread – rational debate, dissent and consensus advice. Making stuff up and being fast and loose with the science position is not science, nor is it accurate.
Hence my umbrage at people supposedly commenting on the science yet unable to quote even the most simple source. It means you have devoted little time to any serious study of the core material yet have many opinions.
luke, that Church et al paper you linked to is terrible; in every respect, aerosols, OHC, sea level rise it is demonstrably, that is observationally, wrong.
In respect of aerosols initially, and all other forcings and climate parameters:
http://landshape.org/enm/rejoinder-to-geoff-davies-at-abc-unleashed/
Luke said:
“It is also unreasonable to confound the climate science position with policy options on mitigation and carbon taxes. The climate science is the climate science. Unpalatable or unworkable or even silly policy responses are NOT the fault of the science. ”
Agree with that, but silly political responses come about because of the IPCC which produces policy guidance for governments BASED on the “science” climate scientists produce.
My only query with your argument is this, if the IPCC and consequently governments get it so wrong and produce “silly” policies based on the finding of scientists, why then don’t those very scientists intervene and correct those wrong assumptions?
I know, I’d be jumping up and down if my research findings were misused, so why aren’t these reputable scientist doing the same? Mayhap they agree with the policies?
Sorry Luke, something doesn’t add up.
You know it and we know it, a tax on production will not reduce the temperature of the planet,
assuming it needs reducing, so why do it?
Luke – there you go , obviously you haven’t read Donna’s little book – do you need a loan of $4.99??
So you want us to read what the IPCC says regarding sea level rise?
If you’d read Donna’s book you would have read this:
Well John mate – come in spinner – this goes to the root of Donna’s utter bullshit. This would be the mangrove tree moving Morner would it? http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=118
Interestingly Morner’s findings have been firmly rebutted in 4 separate publications (Church et al. (2006), Woodworth (2005), Woodroffe (2005) and Kench et al. (2005))
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/Church_et_al_2006_published.pdf
Also Morner’s behaviour is set into some perspective when one sees http://secure.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
And the unpublished Cohenite has the temerity to announce that he knows more than the international dream team that wrote the latest GRL paper. What utter crap.
Excuse while I have a hurl in the corner.
Johnathon – it’s not a “tax on production will not reduce the temperature of the planet” – it’s moreover find a way of generating energy that doesn’t change the radiative balance of the atmosphere. If it be nuclear – fine !
The climate scientists don’t come up with the mitigation response options. They can inform that debate at best. If it’s economically, technologically or politically unacceptable they can inform the debate about adaptation measures and environmental impacts.
From Luke’s return to typical ignorant rudeness, it is clear Donna’s book is good.
I think I will make sure and get a copy ASAP.
Luke, Donna owes you a word of thanks- who knows how many readers of her book you will drive with your spew?
well the latest research appears to side with Morner.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056
http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/The_dynamic_response.pdf
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Your references broadly agree with Church at al in overall magnitude. The island paper says something about island formation processes more than anything – and we’re a long ways from 2100 by my calendar. If you studied the field it’s a complex area of interactions and lags – regional differences, PDO, net forcing over time. Morner is the last person I’d be getting advice from and for Donna to not discuss the issue fully is simply sloppy scepticism.
Hunter – I’d love you all to waste $4.99 – tell all your friends. We can use their comments as a threshold intelligence test.
Luke – the point is that the references I offered and the Church paper you offered predict a 100mm – 150mm sea level rise by 2100 which is at variance with the sea level rise projected by the IPCC in AR4 of 180mm – 590mm. Donna’s point is that the sea level experts weren’t consulted by the IPCC .
Luke I think we can all agree that the mitigation argument is a total fraud, unless you can’t understand first grade maths.
So what’s wrong with the Labor party and nearly all the media? Also why does a scientist like Steffen not understand the facts of soaring co2 levels in China, India etc?
Throw in fools like Mike Kelly, Wong, Gillard, Swan, Garrett, Brown, Combet, Turnbull, etc.
What is it about wasting endless billions for decades into the future that doesn’t concern you or the mad left?
It can’t change the climate by a jot so why do it, very simple maths calculations proves the case, so why aren’t we all out demonstrating?
But more importantly if you’re all so concerned about the unshakable scientific facts of Agw, why don’t you want to help us with the answer to the problem?
Why not first do the sensible thing and adapt to CC, but in the meantime use our scarce resoures on R&D?
Unfortunately for your side we have Pollies and Journos and the public to educate, but in reality a fair proportion really believe we can mitigate CC by passing this ridiculous co2 tax.
But there is a bi polar dysfunction as well because most of the pollies above are trying to sell as much coal as they can overseas to other countries.
So what do these people really believe when they export a mountain of coal but shudder at a much smaller tonnage used at home?
“Donna’s point is that the sea level experts weren’t consulted by the IPCC .”
WHAT ROT ! utter nonsense
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Nathaniel L. Bindoff (Australia), Jürgen Willebrand (Germany)
Lead Authors:
Vincenzo Artale (Italy), Anny Cazenave (France), Jonathan M. Gregory (UK), Sergey Gulev (Russian Federation), Kimio Hanawa (Japan), Corrine Le Quéré (UK, France, Canada), Sydney Levitus (USA), Yukihiro Nojiri (Japan), C.K. Shum (USA), Lynne D. Talley (USA), Alakkat S. Unnikrishnan (India)
Contributing Authors:
J. Antonov (USA, Russian Federation), N.R. Bates (Bermuda), T. Boyer (USA), D. Chambers (USA), B. Chao (USA), J. Church (Australia),
R. Curry (USA), S. Emerson (USA), R. Feely (USA), H. Garcia (USA), M. González-Davíla (Spain), N. Gruber (USA, Switzerland),
S. Josey (UK), T. Joyce (USA), K. Kim (Republic of Korea), B. King (UK), A. Koertzinger (Germany), K. Lambeck (Australia),
K. Laval (France), N. Lefevre (France), E. Leuliette (USA), R. Marsh (UK), C. Mauritzen (Norway), M. McPhaden (USA), C. Millot (France), C. Milly (USA), R. Molinari (USA), R.S. Nerem (USA), T. Ono (Japan), M. Pahlow (Canada), T.-H. Peng (USA), A. Proshutinsky (USA), B. Qiu (USA), D. Quadfasel (Germany), S. Rahmstorf (Germany), S. Rintoul (Australia), M. Rixen (NATO, Belgium), P. Rizzoli (USA, Italy), C. Sabine (USA), D. Sahagian (USA), F. Schott (Germany), Y. Song (USA), D. Stammer (Germany), T. Suga (Japan), C. Sweeney (USA), M. Tamisiea (USA), M. Tsimplis (UK, Greece), R. Wanninkhof (USA), J. Willis (USA), A.P.S. Wong (USA, Australia), P. Woodworth (UK), I. Yashayaev (Canada), I. Yasuda (Japan)
Review Editors:
Laurent Labeyrie (France), David Wratt (New Zealand)
The IPCC report is a point in time – refinements are made and build on explicit uncertainties discussed in the IPCC reports – for example an update here
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/downloads/797655_16br01_slr_080911.pdf
Luke – that CSIRO article is just a load of scaremongering garbage, did you read it??
It’s created by modellers! the two Coordinating Lead Authors are both modellers! The whole article is about “it’s worse than we predicted” yet here is what is happening in the real world:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
– it’s slowing down!! once again the models are wrong – which is the whole point Donna is trying to make. i.e the wrong people are writing the IPCC articles.
BTW – the Review editor David Wratt works for?
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
that wonderful NZ institute that created the wonder temperature record for NZ.
I wonder how many of the the scientists on that list are also advisers to the WWF.
I notice that no one has disputed Donna L’s work linking the WWF science advisers as being:
a) Publically funded scientists in their home country, including Australia, and
b) Their additional role as auther/ lead auther or reviewers etc for the IPCC.
Conflicts of interest?… nah
Par for the course..
I see luke is in his Mr Hyde mode; to more interesting matters; the AGE is conducting a trial to see who gets to ask what question to that old creep Chomsky when he waddles down to the antipodes next week; if you are inclined go and vote for Peter Colins’ question which is currently coming 2nd on the list here:
http://oursay.org/contours-of-global-order
Because the Resident Dipstick has not read, nor will he read, Laframboise’ account, he has entirely missed the point. Come in spinner, indeed
Laframboise is not arguing science per se, but the corruption at the heart of the IPCC. It is this aspect that she has highlighted – why are they trustworthy, is the question she addresses
In respect to this, the Intergovernmental Academy Council (IAC) was reluctantly commissioned to investigate these issues
The IAC released a Report on this in October 2010, here:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf
The IAC also circulated a questionnaire amongst the IPCC Lead Authors and other influential IPCC players, asking for their unimpeded views on these intellectual corruption questions with the safeguard of anonimity for responses. In the event, nearly 700 separate answers were received
The IAC had guaranteed that the full Q&A report would be openly published (no paywalls) in a timely fashion, but then reneged (such a common story). It was finally prevailed upon to publish an expurgated version, here:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
Remember that these almost 700 answers are from IPCC leading personnel
These several IAC investigative papers have been available for 12 months now. The central corruption issue is the conflict-of-interest situation, wherein Leading Authors and Reviewers actually choose and then pass judgement on their own papers (about 30+% of which are non-peer-reviewed greywash) even prior to any journal publication. The IPCC (through Pauchauri) promised to redress this, but NOT until AR6 at best. No one believes such redress will happen anyway – and the “rule” requiring greywash to be easily identified in the AR’s has now been unceremoniously abandoned
So the Resident Dipstick can upchuck, downthrow and generally ROTFL – we won’t be able to differentiate this from episodic epilepsy anyway. But neither will argumentum ad hominem (Resident Dipstick’s favourite form) wash away the IAC findings
John – you have simply run off laying smoke after being exposed. More conspiracy nonsense. Put on your alfoil hats guys.
In fact John if you think (and I’m sure you do) that “that wiggle” is a “slowdown” well I suggest you go back to something you’re good at like guitar plucking. What arrant nonsense given the nature of the data.
Luke – I don’t play guitar anymore, I did in my youth but I’ve spent most of my time as a record producer/ engineer/occasional keyboard player. I did produce/engineer a series of recordings you may associate your youth with.
http://www.johnlsayers.com/Pages/Track_Record.htm
As ianl8888 and others have shown you didn’t read Laframboise’s book, therefore you comment without knowing what we are talking about.
Yes, it is a “slow down” is as predicted by our own Dr David Archibald.
ROFL and LMAO – you want me to read something with Morner as source??
(but high 5 on music)
Luke here is your hero Gore and another fake recent experiment. Will these fraudsters and hoaxers ever give up with their delusional nonsense?
Please check out this ultimate co2 experiment and explain why Gore and his team need to cheat to get his 2C increase in the extra co2 jar?
What a disgusting and expensive con we’ve all been subjected too and silly, gullible Luke has fallen for it hook line and sinker.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#more-49446
Luke here’s more fraudulent nonsense from your hero Gore. Really is a good co2 experiment when you actually follow it through. Pity about temp in the extra co2 jar.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#more-49446
I should have added ‘wiggle’ to ‘blip’ and ‘noise’ in my previous comment 🙂
What’s Gore got to do with anything?
Alas for Neville who didn’t read far enuff – Anthony said in the end
“I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.”
I’d say Gore had a heap of support from the CSIRO and BOM Luke and they were happy to promote his silly sci fi flick and thought it good enough to show to all the poor school kids around Oz and the western world.
I’ve never said that co2 wasn’t a ghg and have often stated that it would probably increase temp by 1c for a doubling since 1800 ie 280ppmv to 560ppmv.
Gore and that science idiot Nye have promoted this cult for decades and Gore and Hansen started this crap in 1988. So that’s who Gore is as if you didn’t understand.
Yawn – just more sceptic clap-trap talking points from Unca Nev.
“I’d say Gore had a heap of support from the CSIRO and BOM” well I’d say you just pulled that out of your butt (as usual)
Luke,
You are breaking the rule of getting out of a hole by your reactions to Donna’s poorly named book: you should stop digging first. Gleike, a much more famous AGW hack than you, has already been outed for his faux review and has reduced himself to loudly cliaming he really did read the book, when he has done nothing but deomonstrate completel ignorance of the same.
Your bluster, like your latest icon, are both getting stale.
Time for a new try and hiding how peurile and ignorant you can be. Your gang’s current persona is leaving no doubt at all.
The mental gymnastics you go through to avoid
Luke here are Pearman’s credentials. He was the head man in atmospheric science at CSIRO and worked with Gore on AIT. He is only listed as a biologist but perhaps he has completed another degree, but it would be interesting to find out.
Hansen and Gore are even closer of course having dreamed up this nonsense in the 1980’s and Hansen was a consultant on AIT as well, plus all of Gore’s science ? ?? as well.
http://www.claxtonspeakers.com.au/speakers_profile/1322
That’s who the Gore ratbag is as if you didn’t understand.
Oh deary me Neville – try naming who actually is doing the core climate science that informs policy not the infotainment or highly educated and experienced administrators like Pearman . Speaking of infotainment how can you stand Monckton’s pensioner scaring tour nonsense. So much utter rot crammed into an hour mass hysteria and political chanting. My golly you sceptics will put up your share of drivel. Aren’t you embarrassed? You can add Carter and Archibald to the vaudeville act. Shame Neville – shame !
Neville you are never on the science pace – you’re just some little fifth columnist turd rummaging through people’s rubbish bins trying to find a bit of gossip.
Hunter – I’d love to believe you but John’s advert for the Donna book was Morner. Oh come now. You’ll have to do better than that.
If you want to hear stark raving madness listen to Jones interview Steffen – what a laughing stock. Jones questioning was nothing short of amateur stupidity – aren’t you embarrassed? Does Jones think his listeners are fools. Maybe they are? http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=10476
And it’s a worry that the thread is about evaluating other science viewpoints and the inmates here are so gullible they’ll swallow anything.
Luke Hansen and Gore have copped a lot of stick about their work on hurricanes, SLR and glaciers from other scientists, both believers and warmists alike.
Their 6M+ increase in SL is starting to look ridiculous, but they’ve been out done by ABC’s science head Robyn Williams who told Bolt that 100 metres was possible. Of course your Timmy darling has also talked in many metres SLR as well.
Truly you’ve got some really loopy delusional fools on your side Luke.
BTW how many people do you know who’ve won both the Nobel prize and an Academy award at the same time and for the same project.
Again that’s who Al Gore is Luke.
And they’re wrong – they’re AGW groupies not the scientists. But but but – look at the list you lot have got – I mean gadzooks – it’s incomparable – Monckton, Carter, Archibald, Watts, Dellingpole, Ball etc – come on Neviile – aren’t you embarrassed. Surely you must cringe.
Those people on the list are not as loopy as your side by a long shot Luke.
But here’s another list 31,000+ strong headed up by some of the best credentialed scientists on the planet, including Freeman Dyson.
I may be a non scientist for sure but I can look at records of the Holocene and other interglacials and understand that we are living at a time where nothing unusual or unprecedented is taking place at all.
Years of spooky stories by yourself and others have just left your side with plenty of egg on your silly faces.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Neville, you may know even more than Dyson on the topic. As he says ” my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, ………..” ( Wikipedia).
One of the main problems with peer review is that a new paper is sent for review by other researchers in the same field; if the new paper is offering a contrary viw to the established view it is inevitable that it will receive resistance because essentailly the reviewers will have to admit they were wrong. We have seen the vanity and egoes of climate scientists and their confessed determination to suppress alternative views, especially sceptical views. For this reason alone peer review is suspect.
Bazza I’m certain that the mitigation of AGW is a blatant fraud and fisrt grade maths can easily prove this to be the case.
Our stupid co2 tax cannot change the climate or temp by a jot but will hurt industry and jobs here in OZ and help countries overseas transfer our industries and jobs there for their benifit.
The bi polarity of Gillard’s govt is bizarre. Co2 emitted here in OZ is bad but they are increasing coal exports to our competitors all the time, so we know that co2 emissions are not the real problem. Indeed why do they want to cripple our industries and our chance for future employment?
But it seems that Europe and Japan may be slowly waking up to this idiotic con, it’s just a pity our govt are such a clueless mob of drongos.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_europe_now_asks_what_gillard_wont/
“Jones questioning was nothing short of amateur stupidity”
Luke, if that’s your take on that interview then it’s no wonder you’re confused. Steffen did not wish to talk in the same context as Jones and wanted to describe increasing CO2 in the terms of 100% per year which only destroyed his own argument [why then is there no recent warming?] but of the “high confidence” of AGW by the IPCC for which there was little support and substantive value from many contributing scientists, Steffen brushed aside.
Full credit to Steffen for the interview but he sure skated round the awkward bits.
And full credit to Jones for highlighting the awkward bits.
Pity the ABC science programs don’t ask these questions when there is so much hanging on the outcome.
And as for your scathing remarks about Nils-Axel Morner, he’s been studying SLs since before you were born and doing it the right way by actual inspection and measurement. And he’s perfectly right when he says there is simply nothing new happening in SLR to support alarm.
You know about physical measurements Luke? As opposed to modelling? Well it matters not how much you ridicule Morner, the fact is the only SLR that will trouble us is the real one, not the BS that comes from assumptions and GCMs.
SD, Luke seems to be getting more shrill and silly as time goes by. Steffen disagreed with Bolt recently when he stated that China’s co2 emissions were soaring and the country wasn’t some green paradise. Incredible spokesperson for the Gillard govt on AGW.
He’s either a liar or a fool, but there is definitely no excuse for stating otherwise. China’s emissions are increasing at an incredible rate and are projected by the IEA to keep increasing by 2.7% per year for decades to come. India , Brazil, etc are projected to grow at 2% per year over the same period.
Meanwhile the OECD and particularly USA are flatlining over the same period.
Neville, time for your reality check-up. Here are two reasons why we need to make a quick and dramatic move on reducing carbon emissions. First, we are already victims of creeping climate change fuelled by other countries. Uncertain future impacts make us increasingly vulnerable in a land where climate variability is already extreme. We need credibility to influence the main offenders globally to reduce their emissions. That is the only way to reduce our climate vulnerability to global climate change and allow our climate-sensitive industries to adapt. Our credibility is weakened by being the world’s leading exporter of coal. And our domestic emissions per capita are the highest of any developed country; blame coal, cars, cattle! We have to be seen to show the way.
Secondly, our economy is vulnerable; it is the most carbon intensive of any developed country. That limits our growth prospects. Our economy needs to be transformed on a least cost path by pricing carbon prior to introducing an emissions trading scheme.
bazza
Are you for real?
I lived and worked in the DDR and in the USSR, but your sloganeering crap puts them to shame.
Bazza can you please tell us that you don’t believe that mish mash of old fanny, please?
If you do believe it then more fool you, but please don’t expect the rest of us to believe and join your delusional mad cult.
It reads like something out a idiot Gore/ Green checklist of unbelievable nonsense, straight from the fairyland at the bottom of your garden.
“We have to be seen to show the way.”
Bazza,
So by supplying food and energy to others we are acting irresponsibly?
Change into some dry knickers and get this:
1/ Based on the portion of the earth that we occupy we are nowhere near the worlds greatest CO2 emitters. 2/ You can also reduce that by the amount of nuclear fuel we export. 3/ What part of that 0.7c over the last 140 years is due to natural variation? 4/ UHI? 5/ And even if you said all of it was due to ACO2 and you drew a horizontal line through the middle of the graph and then took it to the nearest whole degree you would still have a horizontal line. 6/ How incredibly uncertain is the science? 7/ Temperatures plateaued for 13 years during a corresponding period of record ACO2 emissions.
And 8/ If the world has previously warmed more and often in this current holocene, why then cannot whatever caused that [and it wasn’t ACO2], be also causing this [very slight] warming?
“We need credibility to influence the main offenders globally to reduce their emissions”
Bazza,
You need a bit of cred in the bigger picture:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Bazza how’s your kindy maths and ability to read charts or graphs?
Here’s the facts until 2035 and this is the real world not something out of fairyland.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/index.cfm
Please wake up to yourself and cease believing anything/everything the Greens or Labor throw your way.
Perhaps some more good news from Europe and UK.
Govts are finding this mad clueless cult is costing far too much money, plus of course for a dud zero return on the taxpayer’s hard earned investment.
Also the climate and temp won’t change in the slightest.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/green-agenda-unravelling-around-the-world-ex-australia/#more-18459
Maybe Nev, Nev etc S Drongo and J Wilkes are a bit of a fe facto peer review system for sceptics. But they would need to lift thier game and stick to the facts as presented. As Cohenite wrote above in his devestating attack on the peer review system, “…offering a contrary view to the established view it is inevitable that it will receive resistance because essentailly the reviewers will have to admit they were wrong.” But back to established evidence-based science, how come science over a century or more just keeps advancing if the peer review system rejects efforts to overturn an established view.? Cohenites prosecution seems a tad convenient and evidence free – and we are not talking the odd exception which dont disprove general statements.
But Bazza – there’s this big world wide conspiracy and everyone is in on it. And have you read your latest CEC newsletter – the lads here are probably all paid up CEC members cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/flyer/20111020_Queen_Flyer_final.pdf sure convinced me.
Yuk, yuk , yuk I’d almost forgotten about the CEC Lukey, about as big a pack of whackos as the CAGW fantasists.
I don’t know how we can get through to you and Bazza about the stupidity/idiocy of trying to change the climate from parliament house Canberra, but here goes.
For the next 30 years the non OECD countries will outstrip OECD countries co2 emissions by 20 to 1. So for every million tonnes that the OECD countries emit the non OECD countries will emit 20 million tonnes. Simple maths and Oz emissions don’t even count and the EXAMPLE we are setting is the greatest belly laugh of the last 50 years.
China, the Yanks , India, Japan, Russia, Canada etc, etc and all of the non OECD won’t do anything to damage their economies and why would we ever think they would be so stupid.
The EU carbon trading scheme is per head of population a very tiny scheme compared to our blundering stupidity. We won’t achieve anything but lose industries and jobs to countries overseas that are too sensible to follow our mad fanaticism.
In the SMH a prof had to try and estimate the reduction in temp OZ emission reductions would achieve by 2020 and he came up with the number of 0.004C or one four thousandths of one degree C.
They also calculated that would be equivalent of about 80 hours of China’s emissions at that time. Please let that sink in to your numb skulls before you respond again with more embecilic scribblings.
Next we’ve been told by Labor idiots for years that AGW mitigation is the most urgent “moral challenge” of our lives. We need to fix the climate to save Kakadu, the MDB, GBR, stop SLR etc, blah, blah.
But wait the Labor govt is trying to increase coal exports every year and boasts about the income received from overseas helping to achieve a fantastic balance of trade for us in OZ.
This is bi polar dysfunction at its most bizarre, on the one hand we cripple our industries and jobs growth at home but export 3 times the tonnage of coal overseas so that other countries can have cheap energy and produce more income , industry and jobs for their people, but of course we can’t do the same. No , we’re saving the planet by some sort of new maths it seems.
Then of course it gets much worse because we won’t be able to reduce emissions enough to meet our 5% reduction by 2020.
So we must spend endless billions $ overseas every year to buy carbon credits from other countries so we can continue using our own coal for industry and jobs . This is pure madness because markets for this purpose are hopelessly corrupt and there is no proper verifiable audit in place even in the EU that doesn’t suffer from this corruption as well.
If Bazza and Luke think buying fresh air from corrupt markets is a simply wonderful way to change the climate then I’m not sure many Aussies would agree with them.
But I’m then we’d actually be buying only a miniscule fraction of 0.04% of the air, so it gets worse and more idiotic again.
Unfortunately you can’t change the maths to suit your stupid arguments no matter how hard you try. There is zero we can do to change the climate whether you like it or not.
So that’s why I won’t be joining you and all the other fairies at the bottom of your garden.
Sorry 5th line from bottom should read—– But then we’d actually be buying only a miniscule fraction of 0.04% of the air, so it gets worse and more idiotic again.
Actually a tiny percentage of that tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Another sceptic meme shot to bits
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI
Little lukey tries to use the pointless Muller paper(s) to make points. Of course, has it been PEER REVIEWED YET LITTLE LUKEY? I thought you only respected PEER REVIEWED Junk Science?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why yes, he found that RURAL UHI was larger than urban UHI. Whoda thunk?? Oh yeah, Dr. Spencer brought this question up in a study he did. What that means is that there is NO area that is being measured that is not affected by anthropogenic waste heat. While this sounds important, the estimated waste heat from ALL humans is infinitesimal compared to the entire planet. What does that mean Little Lukey?? Glad you asked. It means that the .8c that he tells us the EARTH gained in the last 50 years was only gained by human polluted areas!!
So, what did the dear Doctor do to get rid of all that UHI influence since he had no base line to estimate the exact size, rather than rural/urban difference, and take it out???
Sorry Little Lukey, as usual you are too eager to make Alarmist apologetics and don’t take enough time analyzing FACTS!!
Another issue you might try and choke down is that he apprently is still using the same NCDC adjusted data, or the same raw data with similar adjustments that are used by the other temp series so in no way can it be considered an independent record. When y’all have a data base of temperature measurements where the local anthropogenic contribution has been minimized similar to what is done for the CO2 measurements we will have something to discuss as to whether we are warming or cooling!!! Until then you are measuring garbage.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So, let’s talk about the OHC and the Sea level which is alledgedly done more consistently.
Poor KookyKat – yet another in the long line of papers and reconstructions now showing what time wasters sceptics are. Pity the satellite data, ocean data sets, species behaviour all show the same thing trends. BUT – that’s why YOU lot are deniers. That’s deniers who deny deny deny.
And framers too – spangled would be well to notice Alan Jones scum-bag shock-jock technique of developing a few talking points – typically only one side of the CO2 mass balance equation and then harping on that – rudely cutting off any reply or expansion on the topic. The guy needs a good smack in the rhetorical chops. But more importantly he needs to be publicly interviewed himself in a star chamber as to why he uses these Gestapo techniques?
Little Lukey,
Time wasters? You mean like building inefficient windmills that create huge amounts of CO2 while being built and require high maintenance and deliver energy when it mostly isn’t needed??
How about that carbon tax or cap’n trade and the other moronic devices your alarmists have developed that will do nothing but destroy the economies of the countries stupid enough to follow through with them leaving India and China as the new super powers!! Calling you comrade could come all the sooner.
Hoe about limiting Hydroelectric while starving farmers of water hurting agriculture and not helping the environment one bit??
OK, what would you ACTUALLY do if you were Czar for a year or two Little Lukey??
Oh, Little Lukey,
try checking out Douglas Keenan’s post on the Berkeley Barf at WUWT. You know Keenan, the guy who pressed until finding out that Wang was not wight and Jones was using the same non-existant data from Chinese stations to minimize UHI??
Yeah, the smart guys hit it a lot harder than I can. They basically tell us that the simple minded model used was pointless and tell us nothing. His verbs and nouns were more emphatic as he understands the issues much better than I!!!!
Turns out that their home made method for determining whether a station is rural, peri-rural (or something), or urban might have problems as they ID’ed a site as very rural that was the site of the largest or second largest smelter in the world for its ore type!!! Yeah, doing virtual reality climate science does have issues!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Little Lukey,
Time wasters? You mean like building inefficient windmills that create huge amounts of CO2 while being built and require high maintenance and deliver energy when it mostly isn’t needed, puree birds and bats, and generally blight the landscape??
How about that carbon tax or cap’n trade and the other moronic devices your alarmists have developed that will do nothing but destroy the economies of the countries stupid enough to follow through with them leaving India and China as the new super powers!! Calling you comrade could come all the sooner.
How about limiting Hydroelectric while starving farmers of water hurting agriculture and not helping the environment one bit??
OK, what would you ACTUALLY do if you were Czar for a year or two Little Lukey??
Comment from: bazza October 21st, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Maybe Nev, Nev etc S Drongo and J Wilkes are a bit of a fe facto peer review system for sceptics.
Nothing of the sort, I merely mentioned that your post reminded me of the slogans and motherhood statements I used to see and read in the old USSR and East Germany when working there.
You could have made the perfect cadre.
———————————————————–
But they would need to lift thier (sic) game and stick to the facts as presented.
What facts did you present then?
None as far as I can tell, and let me remind you, as one who travels the world constantly, the WORLD in general, couldn’t give a hoot for what Aus. does, unless it directly involves trade. And even then only those directly involved in said trade take notice.
Follow our lead? you suffer from illusion of grandeur, together with the present Gov.
Let’s face it, most foreign people couldn’t even point out OZ on the map, big as it is.