SCIENCE was once about matching theory with reality. According to American physicist and historian Thomas Kuhn this perhaps more than anything else contributed to the phenomenal progress made by scientists over the last 400 years.
But many people appear to have a problem with understanding theory and considering it in the context of reality. Consider Anna Rose and her performance on the documentary ‘I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change’ featured on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) this evening. Ms Rose was flown across Australia and around the world to talk with climate change sceptics but refused to engage constructively on issues of scientific evidence. Yet evidence is central to science and in particular determining whether theory and reality match.
Instead of listening to what Richard Linzen had to say about feedback mechanism and global climate she said he was not credible because of his views on passive smoking. When it came to Marc Morano, another person introduced to her as sceptical of anthropogenic global warming, Anna Rose point blank refused to talk with him because she said he was a liar. Clearly Mr Morano is influential, here was an opportunity for Anna Rose to apparently show him up as a liar, and she would not engage.
Nick Minchin, who travelled with Ms Rose and who had been specifically tasked with attempting to change Anna Rose’s mind, also tried with the evidence, but he didn’t see able to engage her either.
Jo Nova, David Evans, Richard Lindzen and Marc Morano all provided data that would suggest the theory as promoted by Anna Rose does not accord with reality, but she would not engage.
I noted she suggested that there was something wrong with the sea temperature chart provided by Mr Evans, so why didn’t she provide an explanation and show us what the situation really is with respect to sea temperature?
Instead Ms Rose suggested that all credible scientists say we have a problem, that increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are going to result in the destruction of our economy and the Great Barrier Reef, and we must believe them. Does she realize she is just appealing to authority and not engaging with the evidence?
It would have been easy enough for the documentary makers to nail a couple of issue of evidence. For example, what is the real story with global sea temperatures? But instead, by the end of the documentary it appeared they were keen to move from the science to issue of renewable energy and so was Anna Rose.
Tony Jones suggested, when he opened the Q&A session that immediately followed the documentary on our ABC, that he wanted to focus on renewable energy issues and that the science was no longer a central issue, but every time a sceptic began with some scientific facts, Mr Jones called on “his scientist” Matthew England who was ‘wired-up’ in the audience to put a particular perspective with respect to the science; the ABC perspective.
And according to Jo Nova:
“We did 4 hours of footage at our house, and they showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Rose’s questions. I repeated my favourite lines about 28 million weather balloons, 3000 ocean buoys off by heart at least 4 times [which show no global warming and therefore a mismatch between reality and theory]. Obviously everything I said was too ‘dangerous’. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not ‘interesting’ to the Australian public. So all in all, pretty much as we expected. They trimmed it down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do)…”
Our ABC has no concept of evidence, or the importance of attempting to match theory with reality, as part of assessing the reliability of a scientific theory.
And it is disappointing that our ABC couldn’t bring itself to get even one sceptical scientist into the Q&A audience to provide some support for Nick Minchin – though he did well enough on his own.
John Sayers says
the last few minutes sums it up. It has been a debate between her and Nick Minchin. He is given the last few seconds to respond as if defeated. … F**K you ABC.
John Sayers says
I can’t believe it – here we have an innocent young girl up against the hardened Politician.
Nick – you blew it!!
The consensus position on climate science is tarnishing not just that field but the whole of science and journalism. One day soon, they will realize that the life preserver they’ve all tied up to has stopped floating and is dragging them all down. Will the scientific and press establishment cut loose soon enough?
Jo, David, Mark plus Richard all in the one show on equal time with the rest of the sources, what more do you want?
I cracked up when Tony Jones started talking about toxic carbon and then stated how its ruining our planet and damaging our health.
When he said it again I had to switch it off.
The most interesting part for me was Anna and others claiming China was way ahead of Australia in controlling carbon pollution.
There was a long piece on ABC RN yesterday saying the exact opposite.
If nothing else, these people and this agenda is messing with our heads!
I agree with you Jen, not much evidence.
I think the bloke in the pub who told them they were ‘buggered’ because they had foolishly triangulated the debate was probably closest to the mark.
Anna is sweet and obviously a true myopic believer but her message and her ‘solutions’ were garbled and based on narrative more than evidence.
I was particularly amused by her outlandish statements about coastal communities.
After watching that, we could swear that before ‘climate change’ the ocean has not eroded coastlines and it therefore must be our fault!
Isn’t the fault ours only because we like to settle on coastal fringes even though we know that the ocean and coastal weather is NOT a controllable beast?
It was astounding that those pics of the eroding coastline were used as ‘proof’ that man made global warming is ‘real’.
Until that point, they were at least attempting some sort of balance.
Then off they went to the GBR and asked a STUPID rhetorical question!
It concluded very, very badly with a hypothetical agreement about renewable energy. . . . give me a break!
As if ANYONE with half a brain would disagree that we will eventually move on to other forms of energy, just as we have always done in our short history on this planet!
Good timing gal
Typical of the looney left Luke and Gav get very excited by a show exploiting barking mad science outcomes that can’t be verified by very simple maths.
One definition of madness is to continue repeating an action in the hope that next time the outcome will some how be different. Like repeatedly stepping on a rake and wondering why you keep getting a smack in the face.
Likewise you refuse to acknowledge that solar and wind are useless forms of power generation and that countries who have tried this years ago are paying a fortune for very expensive and unreliable power.
Of course Germany now has decided to start building new coal fired power stations again after spending 130 billion $ for a return of 0.3% of their electricity to the grid.
We should be abandoning useless, super expensive solar and wind and using our cheap coal and gas just like the countries we export to like Korea, Japan, China, India and Europe.
We know by their export actions that the Gillard govt doesn’t believe that increasing emissions of co2 is a problem, so why should we be exploited and crippled here in OZ just to satisfy dumb fanatics?
spangled drongo says
If there’s one thing “our” ABC showed last night, it is just who the denialists are.
Anna was and is, in a complete state of denial throughout. A very zealous, single-minded girl with a mission.
She could not conceive of any of the simple truths she was confronted with. It’s hard to believe that she is a person willing to look at any, let alone all, evidence against her cause.
The social engineering in the whole show was astounding. George Orwell would have been impressed.
On a positive note, Minchin, outgunned completely by the manipulators, still maintained a rational and pleasant attitude.
spangled drongo says
To allow that “question” from Beyond Zero Emissions about the aspirational wish list of crazies which has been audited and found wanting even by the warmists and not allow any sceptical evidence like Jo and David produced, says it all.
And as Debbie said about that East Anglia coastline that has suffered flooding and erosion since before the days of Hereward, what’s that got to do with anything?
Sour grapes from Jo n Co won’t do cause there were lots of cuts and none the least this bit that shows Nick in a good light, see “The how and why of climate denial”. Btw SD; I always thought Senator Minchin was a good guy apart from being a classic liberal.
Anna’s own comment; “Why I engaged with the sceptics”
Now guys, what about that bit on UHI research?
Anna Rose, first parking the manic grin on her moosh, then getting the vulnerable tremble in her voice just right, before accusing her contradictors of being in the pay of Big Anything…
Sorry, it’s time to turn the ABC into an info-mercial channel selling kitchen gadgets. Tony can keep his job as a paid demonstrator, Anna Rose can do phony interviews about how she loves the products and avoids all inferior competitors, and we can all make a few bucks out of shills selling worthless junk.
At present, we have shills selling worthless junk on the ABC…and we actually have to pay for them!
Ah settle down – it’s just info-tainment. Don’t expect too much. How can you seriously explore any serious ideas in that format.
Don’t forget the real biggy attached to this illogical, unreasoning rubbish is the ongoing cost to the Aussie taxpayer of purchasing co2 credits decade after decade.
In time this fraudulent con trick will blow out to hundreds of billions $ wasted down the drain to some completely unverifiable sources overseas and with a zero return for climate or temp or SLR or droughts etc.
In summary the Gillard govt couldn’t care less about increasing emissions of co2 , (except in Oz) but are happy to waste billions$ purchasing co2 credits from shonky sourses overseas.
The earth moved for me when Minchin became a warmist.
spangled drongo says
Bazza, you have to confirm your own delusion somehow.
spangled drongo says
“Ah settle down – it’s just info-tainment. Don’t expect too much. How can you seriously explore any serious ideas in that format.”
That’s true but if that’s the best “our” ABC can do [deny the science and stack the panel and the audience] against at least 50% of the population, they need a serious overhaul.
And compared to the norm last night was one of their more “balanced” efforts.
Just filing this here:
Did you see Nick’s article in the SMH?
…One other significant appointment I sought – the footage of which lies on the cutting room floor – was with Professor Jasper Kirkby in Geneva. Kirkby is leading a team at the world-famous CERN research facility investigating the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formation, and the consequences for our climate. This is fascinating work which amply demonstrates how much we don’t yet know about what drives our climate – and that to claim ”the science is settled” is simply a lie. I felt that if any of the visits I proposed had shaken Anna in her convictions, this was it…
Regards, Bob Fernley-Jones
SD, as Minchin said to Muller : “Well I’ve never denied that we’ve gone through a warming phase. Both, you know, the satellite and the land-based data show that subject to the sort of
issues Richard’s raised that there’s been an increase in average global temperature from the ’70s onwards.”
BUt it’s hopeless trying to get any serious analysis on these type of shows. In any case the best place for the energy debate is bravenewclimate – everything else is off the pace. You’d need hours to plough through the science properly. Q&A is just entertainment.
spangled drongo says
So Bazza, how does that make him a warmist? I have been answering the questionaire in those terms and it keeps telling me I’m dismissive.
Do you know any reasonable sceptic who doesn’t admit there was some warming in the latter half of the 20th C?
It was interesting last night that the bleedin’ obvious question, “if previous holocene warm periods weren’t caused by ACO2 or even CO2 then why is this one?”, was never asked.
Or even the simple fact of the complete non-correlation of CO2 with any global warming:
When did anyone say that there hasn’t been some warming (and some cooling and some drying and some wetting etcetera)?
You seem to think that if someone observes….quite correctly….that sometimes we have warming phases…..that means they have stepped over some type of magic line?
The issue is nailing down what causes these things to happen isn’t it?
The issue is also whether we know enough to attempt to control climate isn’t it?
Or…. even more importantly…if we actually should attempt to control global climate patterns or slow them down or reverse them etcetera????
I agree with Luke….it was info-tainment and towards the end, rather transparently so.
The agreed position at the end re other sources of power in the future was a complete no brainer IMO.
If anyone has ever been a part of these type of documentaries they would know that far, far more stuff ends up on the cutting room floor than on the screen.
Radio delivers a better portrayal of the content….but still gets edited and re arranged for best effect…and for info-tainment 🙂
Q&A is just entertainment….the pretense from Jones that it’s serious and informed free discussion is the ironic part.
Still….sometimes people like Jen actually get to slip in a good one that is actually based on solid evidence rather than invented narrative….or purely a good story 🙂
John Sayers says
I wonder who advised Palmer to wear a striped shirt that made him look like a Banana in Pyjamas.
It’s funny how we in Oz pay attention to slimy, grinning commissars like Anna Rose, while the countries that copped a gut-full of such benevolent “educators” in the post-war decades are building splendid new brown coal facilities – even using “climate” monies!
Meanwhile, we’ll be giving out 760 million in grants to the big three generators in Vic, not to modernise, but to help them “adapt” or “transition” or we’ll-think-of-something. So: more cost, more CO2, more real pollution, more waste, blackouts (but only if they really mean it about phase-outs), business closures, bureaucracy-laden compensation schemes…I can see why Anna Rose and our Green Betters would love it, but what are the rest of us thinking?
God’s bloody truth!
spangled drongo says
I understand that some Qld towns had their coldest April day today. Anybody know what towns?
John, I don’t think Palmer owns any other sort .
Since nobody bothered to to note this program was in part about mutual recognition by the extremes for the benefit of those in the middle who get turned off by the constant lobbing from each side, is any one here capable of finding that middle? Not trusting the scientists is the poorest of all excuses.
“…is any one here capable of finding that middle?”
So, tell us about the middle position you’ve found.
Minchin was correct and England was wrong about temps since 1990. So what was that Gav about trusting scientists?
Even Phil Jones agrees that temps have not risen by more than 0.16c per decade in the last 150 years. James Lovelock said the same thing only a few days ago. I think the satellite temp increase is about 0.14c per decade.
ABC is a public disgrace and needs a major overhaul. I doubt if even our pusillanimous and cowardly BBC would stoop to the level I heard on ABC last year – ‘Today there are two demonstrations in Canberra – one against the carbon tax, and one in favour. Here’s the spokesman for the pro-tax lobby’. And that was that!
At this point, the regulator should have sat up and banged some heads hard. But no-one even seemed to notice. Though ABC costs less than carbon taxes, it could still prove very expensive in the end. With this cavalier attitude to truth, who knows what other costly lies it may be telling?
But I exaggerate. Things aren’t really any better here in Blighty. Currently, one of your media-owning fellow countrymen is right in the doo-doo for malpractice. Good. But despite his unhealthy closeness to power, all his cuddling up to the plastic politicians couldn’t make them agree to his desire to start a Fox-style slanted TV station. The reason? TV coverage has to be ‘balanced’. Yes, of course. Which is why so many Beeb journos are green activists/censors/goodthinkers just like their Aussie counterparts.
Aux lanternes avec eux, citoyens! Ca ira – on les pendra! C’est Mick Dundee qui tiens les cordes!
I don’t think so.
I’m pretty sure Luke is right….it was info-tainment, disguising itself as an attempt at finding a middle ground.
It’s OK…I was info-tained.
Here in the USA, climate extremists are busy pretending they never claimed tehre was a climate crisis in the first place. In the UK, there is some AGW promoter who claims he would rather mangle his genitals in a door than to debate skeptics.
There is a clear yellow streak that links AGW true believers world wide: They know they cannot win the debate. They know they are wrong. But they are too prideful to admit it, and they are too cowardly to debate it.
That silly fib to Minchin by England is starting to gain traction, but will the ABC pounce on his fib the way it always does to sceptics? Yes religious Gav we must trust the scientists.
Minister for Truth says
Scientist Mathew England is a culpably incompetent as the ABC.
They both owe Minchin, and the general public, who certainly fund one of them, if not both …. an apology
Is this likely…. nah
Its not the way the lefties do things is i.
spangled drongo says
A deep and meaningful study by the Dept of Climate Change, BoM and CSIRO [what a combo!] and guess what? They need more funds. Hooda thought?
I wonder if ol’ Flanners was involved?
Why am I changing from a sceptic to a cynic?
The flip way Minchin and Lomborg talk about “Green” energy is to be deplored. Concessions to Environmentalism are subtractions from Conservation. You cannot conserve and waste.
Nor can you advance by stifling the material aspirations of the masses. I don’t care what the current energy source is, provided it’s the cheapest and most abundant available, and provided that resource is never frittered (eg. by burning good coal to make wind turbines). Our power generation is different to and better than its equivalent in the Victorian era. A future era won’t be interested in the resources we use now, any more than we are crying over the exhaustion of mast timbers or whale oil or paraffin.
Did I say “masses”? There are now people in million dollar homes who cannot flush their toilets properly or wash dishes hygienically.
Remove its disguise, and Environmentalism is that familiar ghost from last century: destructive collectivism guided by self-appointed elites. The natural social enemy of Environmentalism is a rising, expanding middle class; its natural philosophical enemy is Conservation.
Guys; I just had a butcher’s hook at the NOAA 2012 April global ocean temp anomaly and it has climbed exactly 1.5 C in 100 years and that’s in a good period on their graph. Elsewhere there is the salt trend but it’s too subtle for this place rather than fresh.
Wake up and use your own eyes instead of other people’s political (blog) nonsense!
John Sayers says
Delingpole giving it to John Faine on ABC Melbourne.
Got a link to that Gav, but remember we’re on the best side (for us) of a minor ice age and there must be an increase in temp. Many scientists claim that the LIA was the coldest period for 8,000 years, so is this your perfect climate nirvana? It’s certainly not mine.
How much of that increase in temp is due to GHGs is anyone’s guess, but I’d say most is a natural increase from a very unique cold period. ( for the Holocene)
spangled drongo says
And gav, just how consistent, comprehensive, complete and convincing would you expect NOAA data to have been in the 90 years leading up to Argo?
What are we supposed to be waking up to in particular and what are we supposed to be doing about it once we have woken up to whatever it is you want us to wake up to?
Aren’t nonsense politics actually the esential problem?
Neville asks a very important question.
Is there some type of perfect climate nirvana that we could manufacture and maintain?
How does that work?
How would that mitigate sea level temp rises, coastal erosion, salt levels etcetera?
Have you seen any plan (political or otherwise) that could either articulate what a climate nirvana is or actually create that climate nirvana?
“Since nobody bothered to to note this program was in part about mutual recognition by the extremes for the benefit of those in the middle who get turned off by the constant lobbing from each side, is any one here capable of finding that middle? Not trusting the scientists is the poorest of all excuses.”
So, you don’t accept that there are FACTS and scientific TRUTHS that trumps opinions and sides that needs to be sought out and presented rahter than trying to come to some bloody CONSENSUS that IGNORES REALITY?!?!?!?!?!
To begin with, I’d love know how anyone can know a “global ocean temp”, now or a hundred years ago. There was so little research activity at the bottom of the Marianas trench between 1912 and 2012! Maybe we’re talking about some data based on some near-surface readings, and someone has mistaken that for a “global ocean temp”. Remote sensing has helped greatly with surface temps and currents, but what satellite was hovering in 1912? But let’s accept some up-rounded (of course!) Challenger-style readings alongside modern sensing. A surface and near-surface warming can be dated back at least 135 years, to Challenger, and almost certainly pre-dates Challenger. This has led some warmists to blame the popularity of cement in the 1800s for CAGW. Really! Yet more than a century after they started burning all that lime and we had an ice-choked Arctic and a global cooling scare on our hands in the 1970s! Gets so confusing, doesn’t it?
Me, I have no problem believing in some “global warming” with ups and downs after the middle of the 19th century. Right now is my favourite bit of the whole Holocene, especially when it gets just a bit cooler and wetter in NSW, like now and in the 1950s.
So I will most certainly question other people’s political (blog) nonsense!
Minister for Truth says
Even a kid with some help from his dad can show that most of the waming has been caused by man …..the very same sods that live in big cities ..surrounded by lots of cement,tarmac and buildings and populated also by greenies, and the publically funded delusionists.
UHI at its most conclusive
What a hoot..can it ever get more ridiculous.
So Mathew Englands unsupported assertion would have even less credibility if all the UHI was taken out
Being a slobby blogging type, I said “up-rounded” readings when I should have said “rounded-down” in connection with those adjustments to Challenger readings. Who knows, the adjustments may well be scientific and non-political. Ropes can drift, sending thermometers higher, there were pressure probs with the old depth thermometers, they say. All those Argo refinements are no doubt wonderful. It’s just getting harder and harder to trust these days, so “adjustment” and “proxy” become dirty words, which they shouldn’t be.
It is all over, would the last one turn out the lights. You could argue that it is extreme events (and not better information from scientists or worse info from blogs and infotainment) that have most influence on changing attitudes to climate change. The new Yale University -GMU survey found that 76% of Americans believe that regulating CO2 emissions should be a high priority for the federal government. A large majority of Americans believe that global warming made several high profile extreme weather events worse. Denialists will quickly play the “where is the evidence” card, one they rarely use. But it is a nonsense question. The climate has changed!
Climate has changed. Who knew?
As for extreme events, they do my head in. When I think of that Yellow River flood in 1887, and the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 – 76% of me shakes with the factoidal horror of it all.
And that Gundagai flood of 1852! And when the Darling stopped flowing in the 1820s! The Fed drought that cost us 50+million sheep! The Big Heat in Sydney in the early 1790s, where the birds and bats dropped dead from the air!
And all that was before the climate changed! It’s worse than we thought.
Robert, ( Climate has changed. Who knew?) will you be among the last to know?. I have been reading a bit of Kahneman (Nobel prize on how people make judgements etc). One telling quote : “Indeed you will often find that knowing little makes it easier to fit everything you know into a coherent pattern”. It gets worse – he writes about the WYSIATI rule “What you see is all there is”!Good luck Robert and WYSIATI from me.
Bazza, apart from some huffy indignation and some characteristic snobbishness, you haven’t really conveyed much to me in your last comment. But if indifference to history or ignorance of the past can lead to poor judgement, I can see where “extreme climate” shills would have dire trouble meeting the standards which your Nobel recipient and his acolytes claim to observe.
Also, whenever you threaten to leave and never come back (which you do very often) – you come back!
So it’s not adieu, but au revoir!
Good one Bazza 🙂
How people make judgements?
You will often find that knowing little makes it easier to fit everything you know into a coherent pattern?
Excuse me for stating the bleeding obvious but haven’t the exponentially increasing number of models re AGW been working overtime to make it easier to fit humans and their GHG’s into a coherent correlative pattern?
And hasn’t it been the fact that there is a horrible case of ‘little knowing’ and a disgraceful hijack by people who know even less, that is messing up the projective work?
WYSIATI….although an excellent philosophical principle…..can be applied to all human endeavours…including your endeavour to put down Robert in an obvious ‘shoot the messenger’ attack.
Where’s that link Gav?
Robert: Since I often list my key words in a Google search I decided not to bother this time as the URL seemed to be half a page long and it was only a specific query of mine that picked the plot from their very public front end. But it is some hours since and I will be up again at 4am tomorrow and then off to outside chores before daylight.
Have a go yourself with “global ocean temp April NOAA” then probe the official info options.
Recall; I wrote exactly 1.5C / 100y (going back from yesterday.
spangled drongo says
Brisbane today reached a max temp of 19.3c [average max for April 27c] which Channel Nine reported as the lowest max ever recorded for an April day.
I’ve been standing in the rain handing out soggy how-to-vote cards and I now have a dreadful cold. I hope the results make it worthwhile.
Our darling ABC made no mention of the cold record.
Gav, I’m not saying the term isn’t used. I’m saying it shouldn’t be used. Even surface temp measurements in WW2 were variable according to whether Yanks or Poms did them. As for the whole ocean, it’s rather big, and quite deep, with all those trenches and abyssal plains. If anyone can tell me what the global ocean temp was in 1912, I’ll either have them committed or deified. Just some surface and near surface readings will do, when someone has a point they’d like to make. If the 1912 data is a bit light-on, I’ll still catch the drift. (I’m guessing there’s been warming overall? Good. I’m not wanting any of that pre-1850 chill any time soon.)
I’m pleased you’ll be up at 4am for chores. I have some lantana encroaching on the front verandah which I’ve been planning to chop for the last year. Maybe I should attend to it. Or think harder about attending to it.
Ian George says
According to BOM’s records, 16.3C is the lowest max temp for Brisbane in April. However, I totally agree with you that the ABC give us all the hot periods but rarely the cold ones.
spangled drongo says
Thanks Ian, yes I should have checked. 26/4/83, 16.3c
Anna observes a minute of silence near the end of the Morano segment..
spangled drongo says
Like all alarmists, Anna claims honesty and high moral ground but doesn’t want to deal in truth and facts.
When your mind is as closed as that, nothing can change it.
el gordo says
There’s a large percentage of watermelons like Anna and the struggle to debrief them is not going to be easy.
Because the CC debate has a political hue the warmists put their faith in ‘the science’, as postulated by ‘scientists’, there is little we can do to counter this faith even with clear scientific evidence to the contrary.
The watermelons should have egg on their face, but they don’t understand the science and hope by ignoring reality its bound to go away.
Minister for Truth says
The reason for the one minutes silence, and her reluctance to say anything, might have something to do with this material, that wasnt shown at the ABC show ..nor has the media anywhere had the balls or integrity, to reveal and debate.
Jo Nova and David Evans were filmed by the very same ABC crew, but none of it was used ..and it is obvious why not. They wouldnt have an program if it was aired, It woud be an own goal that would make them look like dills.
Jo Nova and David Evans deserve to be recognised and compensated for their sterling work at their own expense, in revealing the extent of the scam.
It is also worth noting that not one dollar from the Tax Payer Provided ARC Science Slush Fund, was involved in the Nova /Evans work. The ARC money has already been wasted on producing the now discredited alarmist cause, and the subsequent campaign of mispresentation.
But it easy to see why Combert and the climatariat have to fight tooth and nail to protect the cause
They are all in too deep to back out now.
Only an election is going to clean this mess up and stop the country wasting yet more money on what is basically a fraud.
Easily sucked in Truth Machine – pretty well all of Evans video is bullshit. And has been refuted. Are you that easily amused. Honestly you lot love having your chain pulled. Choo choo !
spangled drongo says
“pretty well all of Evans video is bullshit.”
Yeah, well that was obviously the ABC’s and Anna’s line too.
Please tell us, Truthful Luke, one thing Evans said that was wrong.
Projections vs satellite temps – wrong
ERBE – wrong
Ocean heat – wrong
Heat islands issue – wrong
Now if you don’t know all these you’re pretty stupid / gullible /or don’t want to know.
Minister for Whatever says
So which of Evans claims are wrong and why/?
In any case why dont you take up your claims with Evans himself on the Jonova blog and under your real name.
So here you go luvvy boy:
These are Evans claims…. enlighten us
“1. air temperature rise overestimated in models since turn of the century. (lower infact than scenario in which we achieve drastic CO2 cuts.
2. Sea level rise massively overestimated.
3. Sea level temperature rise overestimated.
4. Hot spot non existent. (disproves water vapor feedback assumption that amplifies CO2 warming)
5. Outgoing radiation increases with a hotter surface temperatures (disproved models assumptions)”
What… only obfuscation and evasion….thought that would be the answer.
Evans is on pretty safe grounds
(1) incorrect data set comparison with satellite data – how skanky – models don’t predict what UAH sees – the whole comparo is rot
(2) sea level rise – well astro-boy should get published – eh ain’t – fancy wanking about some wiggle from a satellite on the blink
(3) heat content – latest 2012 data says it’s rising
(4) radiation story – slaughtered by RC – more Lindzen dross
(5) global hydrological cycle – amplified as latest research shows
You’re not seriously going to believe these denialist prawns are you? But you’d be too stupid to actually track any of this down and prefer to led around the ring by the nose. You’re just lazy to be do the most minimal checking.
The test is to be published. Evans won’t even though he has sixty-six degrees. Although the system is biased as we all know. So when the manuscript is laughed out of any decent journal – fess up and publish the review comments. We could do with a laugh. All won’t happen. So peez orf !
OK Luke you sling off at Evans. Now he has put it all on the web (several times) so why not do the decent thing and take him apart with details – must be a cinch for one so knowledgeable as you to totally demolish this climate science pretender,
Go to it Luke – or for forever SHUT UP!
Minister for Whatever says
My sentiments exactly olgrumblebum
In his haste to peddle his usual and predictable bluster he has overlooked the simple fact that Evans was only saying that the measures have been grossly over estimated and/or are just statements of fact ie the hot spot doesnt exist.
Evans is accepting many of the mainstream points of the GW science as is it known..it is the issue of feed backs that is the main contestable point, (followed by the mis use of data), and on that the evidence is pretty clear.The alarmists are wrong.Feed back is negative
Interestingly he accepts that the system is biased, but conveniently ignores the consequences of that, in defending the party line.. cognitive dissonance anyone
Skeptical science and real climate have already done it grumblebum. Pity you guys can’t read eh? Deniers just keep on parroting. Surely it’s the volcanoes?
For skeptics who can’t keep up, my post re an observed 1.5 C sst rise April to April over 100y also relates to the Copenhagen discussion for a target 2 C max rise. Btw I say its too much as polar ice sensitivity is well under that.
Google – “temperature rise 1.5 c april 2012”.
Apart from the latest nonsense on H Schtick, we easily find evidence for this issue in April letters to Nature. Ignore the wind farm thingy too as it fizzes according to the latest from Monash Uni (Sancho Panza)
“Equatorial refuge amid tropical warming”
“135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme”
spangled drongo says
Oooo, Oooo, the missing heat is in the ocean!
There’s nothing you can’t extrapolate from dodgy data with a dodgy GCM.
Only the foolishly deluded would believe that the oceans would heat without the atmosphere heating.
Just think about it. It’s the oceans, more than our atmosphere, that provide us with the stable climate we have. They and the atmosphere reached a warm peak 4,000 y ago and have been slightly cooling since.
We can only guess what caused this but it wasn’t due to ACO2.
Bob Tisdale has crunched the numbers and found that there has been little warming in the oceans over the last 30 years.
In the last 17 years there has been no warming in the combined Indian and Pacific oceans and that’s about 75% of total.
The models so loved by the religious Gav and Luke have been hopeless. Take out ENSO and you’re left with egg all over your dial.
But hey both of you go over and challenge Bob and others right now and we’ll see how you go. But remember jellybacks you’ll have to have facts and not led by the nose BS to challenge Bob and others over there.
Tisdale is unpublished irrelevance – shown to be wrong. Tell us when he’s published. Until then – ho hum.
Well go over and show him where he’s wrong sir jellyback. Should be so easy for you and they’ll definitely accept your post and Bob WILL reply to your argument.
Bazza too has cruched the numbers, highly significant warming in the I and P oceans over the last 15 years. This game is a bit like Alices restuarant – you can get anything you want. I am going out to play – as my mother said – never argue with a mug who is unpublished.
spangled drongo says
Luke, d’ya think it’s getting a bit chilly for the whales already?
How come “our” ABC hasn’t claimed it’s all due to AGW?
Yes Bazza – who can be bothered correcting Tisdale’s maths. Indeed the latest 2012 publications says “Warming is surface intensified in all basins. In the 0-100m layer the Pacific exhibits the largest total increase. Below the 100 m layer the Atlantic exhibits the largest increase of all ocean basins at all layers down to 2000 m depth”
Ho hum for Bob – such golden oldies as http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tisdale-fumbles-pielke-cheers/
Highly astute of you.
You can get anything you want…as the ever increasing numbers of statistical graphs, models etc has proved.
The real issue however is:
What do you want?
You aren’t suffering from that WYSIATI syndrome Bazza are you?.(along with all the rest of us ill informed mere mortals)
I’m still rather attached to Starck’s comment about this whole ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ debate….
It looks more like an academic pissing contest than anything else 🙂
I recommend that people read Josephine Kelly’s piece in the Australian last Friday entitled:
“The Strange Idea Behind Ecological Law”
It begins thus:
THE precautionary principle is the most powerful weapon environmentalists have. It has revolutionised international and Australian ecological science and law.
It has driven the global movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The precautionary principle also has driven investment of incalculable public and private funds in ecological research, particularly on the link of greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.
The precautionary principle and other principles underpinning the notion of sustainable development have generated new disciplines in environmental science and engineering.
The principle is not a scientific or economic tool, but was developed to assist governments and peoples with environmental risk analysis….
I found it an interesting and illuminating perspective on this debate.
Luke Bob has answered all of Tamino’s nonsense when he’s allowed to repond on the site.
At the moment Mosher has had a go at Bob about regional problems per modeling, but Bob has shown him where the Ipcc claims that models perform well at regional levels.
But as he says to Mosher 75% of the oceans is a monster region, what more does he want.
Here’s the tip if you /they want to refute Bob you just have to check his numbers and graphs and find a fault (s) and point them out.
The figures and numbers he uses are publicly available from the top institutes, so they should be quickly able to refute him. But I bet they don’t, all they have is BS.
Neville – publish or perish.
So you can’t find any fault with Bob’s numbers and graphs, should be so easy for such a know all.
Can’t be bothered wasting time on unpublished amateurs. You see it’s the old gish gallop – takes too much time to find they’ve made fundamental errors in a slew of accusations.
In any case new papers have now simply overrun his position. Why look at an out of date position?
spangled drongo says
Gish gallop = don’t confuse me with facts Neville.
Besides, our Lukie has metaphorically dipped his toe in all those oceans and ya can’t fool him.
But I would like his opinion on why the whales are leaving the Antarctic.
Maybe the Japanese are still shooting them down there?
Derek Smith says
G’day Spangled, for a brilliant article on the so-called missing heat BS, go to the following;
it puts it all into perspective.
spangled drongo says
Thanks Derek. Fascinating stuff. Hope Luke and Gav read it.
Here’s a bit of supreme, peer reviewed irony. 10 times the current warming rate just from on-shore windfarms. Maybe the off-shore windfarms will warm the oceans too:
Bob Tisdale says
Luke says (April 30th, 2012 at 11:12 am): “Tisdale is unpublished irrelevance – shown to be wrong. Tell us when he’s published. Until then – ho hum.”
Still using the tired old hasn’t-published-a-peer-reviewed-paper argument, Luke? Everyone who reads the thread here at Jennifer’s understands what that means. It means YOU either:
1) checked the results and found them to be correct, or
2) are incapable of disputing my post.
Luke says (April 30th, 2012 at 11:12 am): Ho hum for Bob – such golden oldies as http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tisdale-fumbles-pielke-cheers/
Again, Luke, everyone who reads this thread can also read right through that comment, too. They know it would have taken you little time (2 minutes max) to download the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data, for the coordinates of 90S-90N, 20E-70W, for the period of 1995 to present, to confirm or contradict my results. But if you didn’t do that, assuming you’re able to do it, you wasted your time searching Tamino’s website. And you probably spent more time doing that than downloading the data. The readers here understand that Tamino’s attempts to critique my posts are nonsense. Did you read my replies to them? Here’s a link to the rebuttal to your first link, in which Tamino overreacts to a disclaimer I put on a couple of graphs:
And here’s a link to my comments on your second Tamino link:
Those rebuttals to Tamino’s nonsense also ran at WattsUpWithThat. Here are links to those threads too so you can go through the comments. A couple of Tamino’s disciples made known their lack of understanding on the topics at hand:
Luke says (April 30th, 2012 at 5:45 pm): “Can’t be bothered wasting time on unpublished amateurs.”
That seems to be your only tack, Luke. But it only really reflects badly on you. Maybe you actually did download the data and discovered I was right. So maybe you’re just blowing smoke. Or maybe, just maybe, you’re not capable of disproving the key graph in the post that Neville linked, which was this one:
It’s a simple graph. It shows that the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 20E-70W) haven’t warmed for the past 17 years. That chunk of the data represents 75% of the surface area of the global oceans. 75%. And it shows a linear trend of 0.004 deg C/Decade. EXCEL’s linear trend analysis does a wonderful job of calculating the trends and throwing those nice staight lines on the graph, don’t ya think?.
Neville found that post so noteworthy he provided a link on this thread. Here’s another one:
And after your comments he asked me how he could verify the results. So I wrote a post that illustrates where and how to find the data. That way any or all of the readers here at Jennifer’s blog who know how to create a time-series graph on a spreadsheet can confirm those results. They’ll see how easy and quickly they can verify that the sea surface temperature anomalies of that chunk of the global oceans have not warmed since 1995.
And I’ll invite Jennifer to cross post it here. She can cross post both posts if she likes.
Well gee whiz Luke,
The silence is deafening.
Here is the man whom you have maligned on many occaisions claiming his work is gish gallop, cherry picking, unpublished (therefore amateurish) ,wiggle watching, old hat, shown to be wrong and the list goes on and on and on.
Here is is, offering you the chance to tackle him on this issue.
I’ve waited with interest to see what you had to say about this post and you instead seem to have gone MIA ?
I hope it’s just because you have been away from your computer for over a day?
Oh well Debs – looks like we don’t get to discuss the evidence (on a thread about evidence mind you).
wes george says
Jeezuz, is Luke still kickin? OK, which one of you drongos donated a liver to keep this nematode going?
It’s time we resurrected the concept of Denial as the only possible explanation for the wilful ignorance on the part of the culture at ABC and Luke, who’s been around long enough for his notochord to have absorbed the facts by osmosis.
That would be psychological Denial, not the Green slur, Denialism, which attempts to connect scientific skepticism of the Warmist orthodoxy with Neo-Nazi Holocaust denial.
Denial is the inability to cognitively process facts sitting right in front of your bloody nose. It’s usually caused by trauma and is the first stage of the Kubler-Ross grief recovery model. But in Luke’s and the ABC’s case it’s more related to classical addiction behaviour, as in alcoholics who are in denial of their disease.
The ABC, as the not-so-secret propaganda arm of the Labor/Green coalition is addicted to the Climate Change trope as their best critique of free market economics. Fear of apocalypse was suppose to frighten us all into surrendering our minds and civils liberties to the “great moral challenge of our age,” which is to concentrate power and wealth in the hand of unelected technocrats and regulators in Canberra and the United Nations.
Epic Fail. So maybe the Kubler Ross model of denial as a reaction to grief is partly an explanation too.
David Evan’s youtube falsification of the AGW hypothesis makes it clear climate science isn’t rocket science. Even a child can follow the basic arguments. Yet the ABC can’t bring itself to understand it, much less, heaven forbid let the public hear it explained.
I challenge Luke make a rational argument as to why David Evans is wrong. Or explain how the Earth’s climate remains stable if water vapour feedback is massively positive on every minor warming event.
Here’s a clue–If the Earth’s climate was dominated by X3 amplification on any warming event, then we wouldn’t be here having this debate.
Or maybe Luke is in denial of that too.