THE Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s news online is running with the headline ‘Climate change rallies held around Australia, with calls for Coalition to keep carbon tax’. So many could-be inspiring photographs and could-be inspiring captions follow the headline that I could have been on Facebook. 
Indeed the ABC “news item” would tick most of the boxes for pure propaganda.
I’m filing some quotes from the “news item” here for posterity:
“There is no sceptic at the end of a fire hose.”
“Emergency workers played a significant role in warning about the dangers of unchecked global warming.”
“The Climate Council’s Tim Flannery told 30,000 people in Melboure that Australian must make their voices heard.”
“Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt evoked the memory of the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires, while firefighters spoke of their fears of increasingly hotter days.”
“Mr McNulty says scientists were clear that global warming would make extreme weather events more frequent and severe.”
Meanwhile I stayed at home reading Friedrich Nietzche, and note that he wrote:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
In case anyone would like some real information about why bush fires are becoming more ferocious… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/10/bushfire-management-in-australian-forests-a-note-from-roger-underwood-2/
The ABC have gone out of their way to make this paltry 60,000 demonstration an event, which it was not.
The first anti-Vietnam was protests were 70,000 in Melbourne, and about 120,000 throughout Australia and that was when the cities of Melbourne and Sydney were half their current population.
“In Sydney, deputy federal opposition leader Tanya Plibersek said the Government could not go backwards on climate change as global action galvanised.
“[While] Australia is going backwards, the rest of the world is going forwards accepting that climate change is real and accepting that we must act,” she said.”
Not true Tanya – Japan has just pulled out of Kyoto joining Canada and Australia. The rest of the world is also going backwards on climate change because it’s a hoax.
As for Christine Milne the slimy deceptive Greens leader:
“Was a trading emissions scheme working? Yes. Electricity from old brown sources of energy down, renewable up by 30 per cent in the first year of its operation,” she told the crowd.
She didn’t mention that the Lahore Power station (brown coal) was closed down due to flooding in it’s coal mine and renewables went from 2% to 2.6% (30%) increase)
When is the press going to get off their lazy arses and challenge these liars!
Well it looks like the climate/weather wasn’t particularly interested in co operating with the rally in Sydney.
I had to laugh at how loose they got with the numbers as well.
Check out these 2 reports.
The first one says 10,000 and the second one is estimated at half of that.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/crowd-braves-rain-for-climate-change-rally-20131117-2xosu.html
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-rally-withstands-rain/story-fnihsfrf-1226761943192
Tanya, Christine and Adam et al were just as loose with their comments.
We actually had more people than this at our rallies in Griffith when the MDBA came to town. . .and there is nothing like the concentration of population out here.
You know it’s hurting when you’re all biting so bad.
The weather is against you. And Abbott trying hard not be a denier.
Listen to Sayers froth – “When is the press going to get off their lazy arses and challenge these liars!” What like you? Starting to sound really unhinged JS.
You’ve got Bolt, talk back radio and the War on Science The Australian. What’s your problem.
That’s just it Luke – talkback radio is one radio station in tens, Bolt is on his own and The Australian is provides both sides. My problem is that the ABC and Fairfax encourage this rot and are openly campaigning on the alarmist side. They are like that stupid journalists up against Spencer. Mad as a cut snake.
The irony is this 🙂
Sydney’s weather has broken another record.
The chilly temperature on Sunday was recorded as the coldest day in November in seven years, reaching a top of only 17.6 degrees.
It’s odd that those who constantly use comparative expressions are not the slightest bit interested in the points of comparison. Things are “hotter”, “more frequent”, “more severe”, “more intense”…but as soon as you mention a previous event or period for purposes of comparison the eyes go glazed, the ears are blocked.
By the way, at the ends of fire-hoses there are firefighters, many of whom are skeptics. They just wish places like the notorious Springwood-Winmalee ridge were better maintained for fire safety as the real estate sprawls out. About that need for action they are not skeptical at all.
Everything about climate alarmism is supported by stunts: visual, verbal, intellectual and statistical stunts. Why are the “demonstrators” co-ordinated in red? Because it’s a stunt. They think if they wear the same colour it will prove that the world is “galvanised for global action”. In fact, the world does not wear the same colour. When you do that you just look like a rent-a-crowd. Sonia Plebiscite and Electricity Bill might be in a hurry to tip billions of Aussie dollars into the Great European Insinkerator, but they – and those chanting red-shirts – are not “the world”. Somebody tell ’em.
“Everything about climate alarmism is supported by stunts: visual, verbal, intellectual and statistical ” – what an AMAZING statement.
And that’s why you are a automaton denier and redneck hick. As we all know with the denialist junta – when it’s happening – it’s still not happening. Robby has 100,000 anecdotes for any occasion. And old codger fence post yarn for any situation.
JS – wants it all – until the fascist denialist anti-science junta runs all media – there will be blitzkrieg.
Get over yourselves.
Abbott is in govt – we all know he thinks AGW is bullshit – but doesn’t want to seem too much of an anti-science hick and total redneck. It’s just an act.
But hey don’t think anyone with a brain will suddenly stop thinking. That’s your problem. Tick tock.
So Luke?
Are you therefore supporting the Getup political stance?
I thought you didn’t like the carbon tax?
BTW. . .while you may not personally like it. . .Abbot and the coalition won a resounding victory in the last election and there is little doubt that the electorate expects to see that carbon tax go.
I’m guessing that Abbot and the coalition aren’t too concerned about these rallies.
And what on earth do you mean by…”the weather is against you” ?
That one looks way beneath your usual standards.
luke – blitzkrieg – Godwin.
Your argument is now dead. Go away.
Tick tock say Luke, parroting Al Gore, where Luke gets all his climate science.
Makes sure you have your nappies on Luke before reading:
Will the world end in 100 days?
Sounding of ancient trumpet in York warns of Viking apocalypse on 22 February 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2507778/Will-world-end-100-days-Sounding-ancient-trumpet-York-warns-Viking-apocalypse-22-February-2014.html
25 years of carbon(sic) taxes, and not one gullible, ignorant unhinged climate doomsdayer like Luke can show evidence it works.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
If only Luke could point to a ‘hiatus in warming,’ or a decline in cyclone activity world wide, or a breaking of a drought as evidence a carbon(tax) stops climate change.
PS. Not hurting. Laughing.
“The weather is against you.”
There’s the problem, right there. It’s not a lack of intelligence. It’s a complete inability to think.
As usual Debs goes into dum-dum mode. Well of course it’s obvious that as Abbott “removes” the carbon tax, while “but I believe in climate change “, and “here is my direct (in)action plan” that the disasters keeping piling up. AGW fueled bushfires (bugger) AGW turboed typhoon (double bugger) AGW creeping Qld drought yet to mainline (grrrr) Sending a junior six-shooter to Warsaw to tell’em how it’s gonna be (ROFL).
So at every turn Abbott is reminded as is the electorate. I recommend they consult Wikipedia and tough it out. Put Bolt on. Get an op ed from some dinosaur mining stooge or a trendy economist. Surely the Australian will help. I know – lets ask the bad of codgers aka The Sceptics Party for political advice.
Making you all work overtime in denial isn’t it. How annoying. It’s enough get you speaking in tongues and talking about Vikings.
Just ironic ….
HEY handjive has CRACKED IT !
This is bloody brilliant
“If only Luke could point to a ‘hiatus in warming,’ or a decline in cyclone activity world wide, or a breaking of a drought as evidence a carbon(tax) stops climate change.”
Guys you have been telling about this – so clearly the hiatus and decline in hurricane and the 2011 Australian floods just like handjive has said are due to the cumulative impact of these taxes.
He asked – and he now has the answer. Bloody brilliant. Blog brains at high revs. Scary isn’t it.
Handjive thanks for pointing that out – I reckon we can use that excellent bit of sceptic analysis for months.
You make a grocery list of recent climatic probs and disasters, knowing that one can never run out of them, since they have always occurred, and always will. You make comparative remarks, while refusing comparison. You ridicule all sources which contradict while linking to….the lamentable Hotwhopper! Bad spring bushfires – which are “worse” and “earlier” – are “AGW fueled”. A destructive typhoon (in a major typhoon belt) is somehow “AGW turboed”. While drought is the dominant climatic problem of Australia, a recent Qld drought is “AGW creeping”. Bloody drought! In Qld! It now needs a hand from something called AGW! Does Valentino Rossi need training wheels?
All because some uncomfortably aging urban hipster likes the sound of it all. (You are a bright, amusing fellow, Supercell, of whom I am very fond. But you are old, and made older by a mentality hich has been decaying since the sixties and which is now beginning to stink most awfully. You are blasted with antiquity, you poor old fossil.)
These are the only numbers that matter. If you don’t understand these simple numbers you understand nothing about human co2 emissions 1990 to 2011. (latest update 2011 and it doesn’t help silly Luke)
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD
Luke’s so stupid he still can’t understand these simple facts and continues to support his barking mad cult.
Luke also supports numbskulls who yell such absurdities as”we must stop climate change”????, Abbott is a climate criminal” and “the recent typhoon and bushfires are caused by humans.”
This is the calibre of donkey we are debating???? on this blog. He knows zip about the subject and even the moron who debated Spencer looks clever by comparison.
Very scientific discussions, these climate change hysteria rallies.
They suit the one liner arguments.
Pity you couldn’t get paleo detail like this on a cardboard placard:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years/#more-97612
That’s a good link Spangled. Just have a look at this graph of human co2 emissions 1990 and estimated to 2040.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm You’ll notice that the OECD emissions are similar in 2040 as 2007, but the non OECD continue to soar.
If Luke and the other pig ignorant donkeys can’t comprehend these simple numbers and facts we certainly need a complete change to educate our children properly.
WE can’t afford another generation of Lukes and we should show more regard for commonsense and the ability to read and comprehend. Without these changes we’ll have another lost generation just as silly as the fools protesting yesterday. Plus the loopy pollies that addressed them as well.
Listen to Neville froth.. What a climate crim. Advocating unrestrained growth in a radiative gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The sort of person that ignores science and slums around pig slop disinformation sites.
The good news is that Neville has absolutely no effect – simply wandering around making a fool of himself quoting Timsdale. ROFL.
What is interesting if from handjive’s list that none of the countries that have had a carbon tax seem to have disappeared from the Earth.
Like I said Luke you’re just an ignorant fool, but why should we abandon logic and reason just because of your stupidity and lack of comprehension and commonsense?
You’re a lost cause, but I certainly feel sorry for the poor little kids at the rallies yesterday. Given enough time and endless brainwashing they’ll probably grow up to be as stupid as you are.
Luke,
I understand that you believe in AGW.
I don’t think anyone here would argue that humankind does not have some influence on the climate/weather/environment. . .especially at a local scale.
What you’re totally ignoring is that resources are being wasted and attention is being focused on NRM policy initiatives that provide no benefit and no result in terms of controlling the global weather.
Further, your belief in AGW appears to be actually a belief in CAGW which is underpinned by the assumption that human influence is always bad and that “THEY” whomsoever “THEY” are. . . have to legislate to protect us from ourselves.
You base your arguments on a highly questionable ‘appeal to authority’ which appears to then give you the self appointed right to sneer at others who are just as qualified or possibly better placed to comment on public NRM policy and you seem to base it on their employment and/or academic status rather than anything else.
You downplay errors, misbehaviour and obvious data manipulation by some and and grossly overstate errors in others.
It appears that it has something to do with their personal employment status or career choices and zip to do with their actual abilities, experience and qualifications.
Sorry, a bit harsh I know, but the standard of your comments has severely dropped.
Large numbers also attended Nazi rallies, brainwashed in to believing the BS. Look where it got them. Do note, the Nazis were an offshoot of the Green movement-they loved nature and animals, but hated humans. We braved the rain in Sydney(where is Timmy-baby and his predictions that even the rains that do fall will not swell the river systems and dams) and it was certainly not stinking hot. Just hope some people took note of my placards. One pointed out that the founder and funder of GetUp in Australia, George Soros is a currency manipulator and Nazi collaborator. Also had a rather stoned looking drawing of a rat to point out some glaring inconsistencies of cAGW-smell a rat? Next time, I may have to spray some “rat essence” around- smell a rat, I smell a rat. If you have an open mind and believe science must be balanced, read this.
Oops. Sorry Luke, I made a mistake.
Here I was thinking that evidence actually exists that carbon(sic) taxes work, when this is the very evidence Luke’s Cargo Cult of Global Warming denies.
How inconvenient for Luke.
And my mistake was forgetting carbon(sic) levels @ 400ppm are the highest ever!
http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time.jpg
So, those examples could never happen according to Luke’s 97% of climate scientists.
Bonus: See the climate numptees standing in the cold rain at Global Warming Protest in Sydney.
Just like sheep stand in the rain.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/environment-officials-on-tenterhooks-with-hunt-20131117-2xp11.html
@Comment from: Luke November 18th, 2013 at 8:38 am:
“What is interesting if from handjive’s list that none of the countries that have had a carbon tax seem to have disappeared from the Earth.”
None of those countries on that list have stopped climate change, extreme or benign, either.
Unless you have examples (KPI’s), you only confirm the failure of the UN-IPCC climate science solution of a carbon(sic) tax.
Emissions Control – the true story of how emissions were fabricated to rise and fall by a conspiracy between climate scientists and Greenwich getting into bed . Read on about Leap Year Manipulation. Duncan Clark let the cat out in The Guardian on Nov. 13. “According to the new report, after a decade of growing at a hair-raising 2.9% per year, the growth rate in CO2 from fossil fuels and industrial processes has dropped to 1.4%, or just 1.1% once the leap year is taken into account. And the slowdown happened without any real deceleration in the world economy, the report says, signalling “a ‘decoupling’ of the increase in CO2 emissions from global economic growth.”
Note – a leap year-induced drop from 1.4% to 1.1%! Now who would have bet that indirect action by a leap year could abet emissions that much. The warmists , being evidence-based, numerate and mechanisitic, were quick to deduce that more leap years could quickly control emissions by slowing the globe’s orbit, presumably from the sheer drag of higher sea levels. The unconstrained denialists, overtaken by extremes of desperation, just as quickly deduced that maybe eliminating leap years could just as easily increase emissions. Undaunted as ever by lack of a mechanism since the latest cosmic rays fad got zapped yet again, the denialists were always suspicious of the timekeepers of Greenwich. After all they had been known to make the odd adjustment to world time. So a new theory merged quicker than you could say hiatus hunt. If the year was shortened, the emissions per year would increase ( kindy maths i.e. business as usual). Then once that hoax had conquered the sane world, you could switch to stretching the year to show emissions control.
Dear Debbie – may I say
You base your arguments on totally questionable denialism and utter rubbish which appears to then give you the self appointed right to sneer at others who are just as qualified or possibly better placed to comment on public NRM policy and you seem to base it on their employment and/or academic status rather than anything else.
You downplay errors, misbehaviour and obvious data manipulation by some and and grossly overstate errors in others.
It appears that it has something to do with your personal employment status or career choices and zip to do with their actual abilities, experience and qualifications.
Sorry, a bit harsh I know, but the standard of your comments has severely dropped.
“Large numbers also attended Nazi rallies,” hahahahahaha – nutters really going for it.
Pol Pot is next. Then Stalin. First person to mention Lysenko loses.
“The warmists , being evidence-based,”
Yes, we’ve noticed.
In both GCMs and science papers:
“In their paper, Cowtan & Way apply a kriging approach to fill in the gaps between surface measurements”
But they do it best at rallies:
http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1913470/big-turnout-at-ballarats-national-day-of-climate-change-action/?cs=62
Geeezzzz bazza if you believe that nonsense you’ll believe anything.
BTW it seems even Shorten knows the co2 tax is total BS, but doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the looney left of the ALP.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/shorten_shouldnt_die_for_a_cause_he_doesnt_believe_in/
Here’s that Scotese Berner graph showing temp and co2 trends over the last 600 million years.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/CO2_Temp_O2.html
You’ll note the lack of correlation for many millions of years. Rather stuffs up a few theories.
NAH!
I think the first to use ‘denialism’ loses. . hands down!
Here’s a photo showing Luke at the rally yesterday. Brilliant sign Lukey, just about your level of intelligence.
Sorry I’ll try again. Here’s Luke.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/only_one_of_these_people_thought_they_could_stop_nature/#commentsmore
Neville, what you do notice from that graph is that the world’s temp for the last 600 million years was consistently a lot warmer than present but no correlation with CO2.
Thinks: how can CO2 warm me sometimes but not others?
Why argue with a fool or a climatism junkie?
Refer them to National Library of Australia’s NLA Trove website to see what history shows us about droughts, floods, typhoons etc.
Then with this knowledge (presuming it sinks into the “true believer’s” head) cross reference that with some information on scientifically verified climate cycles, excluding those promoted by the Gore’s Lores brigade.
And that would cover low CO2 periods (B. CO2. perhaps)
Maybe that will turn on a light or two (CFL of course), but then maybe the “denialist” will just miss the point.
Hey Neville – tell us what the solar insolation and continental configuration was?
In fact any serious palaeo evaluation gives a very serious role for greenhouse forcing.
SD’s analysis is simply moronic. Are you really that stupid and unable to research the simple facts? Amazing….
But deniers deny don’t they?
King Canute didn’t have this to contend with did he?
“In fact any serious palaeo evaluation gives a very serious role for greenhouse forcing.”
So this ~ 800 year lag is all lies then?
Never mind, don’t feel lonely, Al got it wrong too.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-StLFXcpY8T0/TptEmTYnseI/AAAAAAAAAfg/yRYUhLyOT_0/s1600/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
Greenhouse and palaeo
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/111/1/52.abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenomanian-Turonian_boundary_event
Role of CO2 in escaping the Marinoan glaciation
SD – irrelevant stupidity current day not marked. And what else would you expect except an 800 year lag. Are you a moron? You really are pathetic.
“Paleo” is Supercell’s latest buzz-word. Used as a handy way to put people down, without actua;;y saying anything intelligent.
97.5% of scientists agree the sun warms the earth.
Re yr comment@ 10.33am
Luke, oh Luke,
How ironic yew be.
Charging considerate
Debbie with yer own
Felonie!
Luke you can try and BS if you like but I can read a graph. At 440 to 450 mybp the planet was colder than today for about 10 million years.
But co2 continued to rise to over 4,000ppmv and the planet’s temp dropped from 25c to less than 10c. Colder than today.
Then from 270 to 310 mybp another ice age occured with a rapid climb again to about 26c. But that ice age lasted at least 40 million years and temps were colder than today.
Next a fall in temp from 140 to 150mybp of about 8c while co2 increased to about 2000 ppmv. Then a flat temp from 80 to 90 mybp while co2 continued to drop for at least 12 million years.
So what happened to the land masses during that time? Must have jumped and jived around for millions of years sometimes but remained stable at other times? What a load of BS.
Say, and what do yer git when yer don’t do climate reconstruction with
bristle cone moisture lovin’ tree ring data but with a variety of paleo
sources, ice cores and sediments? Why, yer git the return of the MWP
and the LIA, that’s what yer git.
Not to be outdone when it comes to propaganda have a gander at The Oz today misreporting what the IPCC really said.
“Does climate change cause typhoons like Haiyan? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has sounded the alarm about man-made global warming, says no. Its latest report notes: “Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone (cyclone covers both hurricanes and typhoons) frequency over the past century.” –
You gotta feel sorry for denialists getting misled so by the Murducci.
And as for climate change demos, wait till the end of summer. The BoM latest forecast shows much of NE Australia at around 75% chance of above median max temperature. And the median is for the already warmer last 30 years.
Reminds me, where is Jens seasonal forecast. Why deny Qld farmers the benefit. And remember it is not corrupted by CO2 related trends – it proved they dont exist – well actually same story on absence of evidence and using odd temperature data. Anyway I would have thought accountability at least to fans and funders demands Jen put out her seasonal forecast for the long hot summer ahead.
Speak English Beth
Beth makes a lot more sense than you Luke.
You immediately blither about the PETM and you haven’t a clue what caused it but the temps for the last 600mill were closer to the PETM than today’s temps.
And CO2 didn’t cause them.
Beth; love the way you speak
Baz, we know how you greenies like your forecasts done and it doesn’t have much to do with the real world:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090105193502/http://beyondzeroemissions.org/2008/03/24/Dr-Wieslaw-Maslowski-ice-free-summer-arctic-2013-or-sooner-loss-of-reflectivity-non-linear
Wouldn’t matter what Jen said, you’d probably prefer Timmy…or Paul.
Are you stupid or what? PETM is a very well researched phenomenon. Don’t come on here, an evidence based blog and be an outright liar and fraud eh? Have some decency. You really are a shoddy grub. Snipping a few little propaganda sites from disinformation sites is just bone lazy but I guess climate crims are.
You could publish if you think you’ve got form. Good luck.
A month ago I was hot and parched and had given up on bamboo. Now I’m chilly and wet and have thousands of fat new shoots. Probably just made it by a day or two.
Climate change! The weather is for me! And there’s no need for a bunch of Watermelons to put on red shirts and chant about how big things grow from little things. When you’ve got a species that can go from the ground to a hundred feet in seven weeks, you kind of know that already. But thanks anyway for the stunt, GetUp Melons. Just think, you might have been chilly and wet on the Big Day, but there are edible mushrooms that will appreciate the rain more than you inedibles.
Hey Baz – this is what SD wants to hide
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?
Getting close to meal time at Robby’s home now.
Hey, Luke,
i’ll speak
proper
English
when u,
Luke,
eschew
abuse.
Here’s a poem fer yer.
Magpie.
What have you, magpie, to celebrate?
Such glorious chortling in an arid landscape.
Leaves of eucalypts hanging motionless
In the breathless mid-day heat. It isn’t
That you can’t, or won’t complain in some
Scenarios, but rather that, by your very song
You are constrained from self-reflexive musing.
For magpie, you may sing only the songs
Passed down the line by those first ancestors.
Songster extraordinaire, you are programmed
To voice liquid stanzas of affirmation,
Your concert repertoire scarcely allowing
For lamentation.
bts
Nice Beth – I’ve often pondered how far back my maggies go – they don’t travel far from their territory so these guys must have a lineage going back thousands of years in my district. Yet they still sing the same complex songs and junior birds seem to know them instinctively.
I like to listen to the soft songs that Magpies sing during the night/early morning in the spring mating season – sound very much like love songs to me. I have watched generations grow in my backyard.
I see luke has been time travelling again back to the PT extinction event and the PETM. The PETM is done and dusted with the CO2 excursion occurring after the temperature rose; in any event the PETM led to the Eocene optimum where the best conditions for life on the planet ever occurred, all at temp levels up to 12C higher than today.
The PT extinction is also not a CO2 event. Luke’s link to the Retallack paper also makes that plain by concluding:
“Evidence from paleosols can now be added to that from paleontological and isotopic studies showing that disruption of the carbon cycle at the Permian-Triassic boundary resulted in a CO2 or CH4 post-apocalyptic greenhouse paleoclimate.”
That is, the apocalypse came first. So, it is misleading to suggest the PT extinction, or indeed any past extinction, was due to AGW. It is true the vast Siberian traps volcanic eruptions, unique in extent and form, occurred then but the modelled extra CO2 caused by the eruption would have risen CO2 levels sufficient to raise temps by only 1.5C-4.5C which could not have caused the extinctions. In addition the changes in the 13C/12C ratio expected to result from a massive release of methane from the eruptions do not match the patterns seen throughout the early Triassic; and the types of oceanic thermohaline circulation which may have existed at the end of the Permian are not likely to have supported deep-sea anoxia.
What is striking however, is while anoxia was not present by today’s level of atmospheric O2, relative to the levels of O2 before the PT event there was a drastic reduction in atmospheric O2 which had reached a peak of 30% of the atmosphere in the middle of the Permian; this is why the age featured such gigantic insects. The sudden drop in O2 would explain why the PT featured extinctions of most insects, also unique. Rather than being evidence of CAGW the PT is most likely evidence of the end of the era of high levels of O2.
O2 would be one of the first casualties of an asteroid strike. But navel-gazers and mirror watchers like the greens and the AGW crowd don’t know outer space exists; they see the world through the prism of their own limits and AGW is perfect for them because it is psychologically comforting to think that you can control the planet and existence.
In reality the Sun and extra-terrestrial factors are the main shapers of the Earth’s environment and climate but that is to disturbing for the luvvies to contemplate.
No it’s a methane event. Guess what happens to CH4 in the atmosphere.
PETM is only one such example. And we’re not discussing extinctions so don’t try to lay smoke. Don’t be such a rampant denier Cohenite.
In fact recent work on the PETM puts a 5C change in temperature in 13 years.
http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/new-finding-shows-climate-change-can-happen-geological-instant/20131003#.UonLcNJ_N8H
5C in 13 years; wow what resolution, that’s science. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06400.html
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES206/readings/Zachos2001.pdf
The second link to Zachos et al was regarded as cutting edge with 100,000 year resolution from a database of 14,800 individual estimates of dO18 isotopes that covers the past 67 million years.
But 13 years! Schmick!
You’re the liar Luke.
Me, I’m just being suitably sceptical.
There are many possible causes for the PETM but you’re stupid enough to think you’ve got it nailed.
These possible causes are all based on numerous assumptions which can’t be confirmed, only guessed at.
But that’s about the limit of your science anyway, isn’t it?
And BTW Luke, I don’t wish to hide anything but instead of cherry-picking half the story you could be honest for a change.
It’s all normal, average and hunky dory so you can dry your sheets and go back to bed:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Bunk SD – stop posting nonsense. It’s not just the PETM
– palaeo climate has a whole literature which you are pig ignorant of.
The cryosphere is NOT normal http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?
so stop being a blatant denier and utter fraud.
Luke – the arctic is surrounded by submarine volcanoes, now they’ve discovered more in the Bering Strait and even more in the western antarctic.
You are hanging on a thread mate.
You just believe utter crap JS. A trivial examination of the issue would reveal.
“Have undersea volcanoes caused the Arctic sea ice decline?
A recent study discovered active volcanoes on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, and some people have wondered if they are causing sea ice to melt.
While volcanic eruptions surely warmed the ocean in the immediate vicinity of the eruptions, the amount of heat they produced compared to the large volume of the Arctic Ocean is small. The Arctic Ocean covers 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), about 1 ½ times the size of the United States or 58 times the size of the United Kingdom. In its deepest spots, the Arctic Ocean is 4,000 to 5,500 meters (13,000 to 18,000 feet) deep. The heat from the volcanoes would have dispersed over an enormous volume and had little effect on ocean temperature, much as a bucket of boiling water emptied into a lake would have little effect on the lake’s temperature.
Second, the eruptions would have introduced heat deep below the sea ice that floats on the ocean surface. The tops of even the tallest undersea volcanoes are more than 1,000 meters (3,000 feet) deep. The Arctic Ocean is strongly stratified, which prevents layer mixing and makes it difficult for any deep water, even deep water warmed by heat from volcanoes, to reach the surface and melt the ice. This layering results from a strong density gradient: water layers near the surface are less salty and therefore less dense, while bottom waters are the densest. Unlike most oceans, where density gradients are determined by both salinity and temperature, Arctic Ocean waters are heavily stratified primarily because of variations in salinity.” http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#volcanoes
Additionally do volcanoes explain the melt over Greenland – http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ What does that look like.
Antarctic warming is due to a warming Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
You’re such a fool for sceptic nonsense JS and spend ZERO time doing any minimal investigation except from reading disinformation blog slops.
John, when Luke is silly enough to believe that a gas stove can’t boil saltwater if it has a few ice blocks in it, his contributions here can be seen for what they are.
Does he really believe that extreme heat from volcanoes wouldn’t break down those stratifications to some degree?
D’you think if this volcano that has only just been discovered wasn’t there, the ice would be any different?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/volcano-discovered-smoldering-under-a-kilometer-of-ice-in-west-antarctica/
When you’re arguing with the Luke and bazza drongoes always remember what these fools really believe in.
Abbott has been in govt for about two months and yet he is a climate criminal because apparently he’s typhoon Tony and could make a difference.
But even the urgers at the IPCC don’t claim any increase in extreme weather events and that includes typhoons.
You only have to look at the record to understand that this is true. As I’ve said before these pair of donkeys will make anything up and will believe anything. Such is the devotion to their mad cult of CAGW.
You can read the EIA’s estimates for co2 emissions from 2010 to 2040. Over that 30 year period fully 94% of that increase will come from the non OECD and only 6% will come from the OECD.
The increase from OZ will add up to zip over the next 30 years and ditto the USA and the EU. This is the level of stupidity you’re dealing with when you try to debate these two maths challenged dummies. Trust me you will never ever get these pair of numbskulls to understand anything.
If they were fair dinkum and really believed their CAGW rubbish they would spend the rest of their days protesting in China and India.
These two haven’t even got the comprehension levels or the maths understanding of a 5 year old kid.
But they’re got plenty of delusional, dopey mates in the IPCC and most govts etc. But you are wasting your time when you have to tackle their level of ignorance and stupidity.
They have no excuse because the maths couldn’t be easier to understand and the english comprehension level isn’t that difficult. IOW they are a lost cause.
A good interview with Lomborg on channel 7.
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg?ref=stream&hc_location=stream
His R&D is good but his comments on coal power for OZ I don’t agree with, but we should have more gas power as well.
Wind and solar are a super expensive joke and we should spend those dollars on development of safe new nukes.
Luke – that article is from 2008 – hardly the latest science – the recently discovered 100 active volcanoes between Iceland and Svalbard would not be in their calculations and these volcanoes are only 20m from the surface.
Yea guys – it’s volcanoes. Brilliant discovery. Off you go now and publish the breakthrough paper in Nature or GRL (ROFL and LMAO)
SD thinks he has a stove the size of the Arctic. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/volcanos-in-gakkel-ridge-not-responsible-melting-the-arctic-ice/
Get a grip guys. Or maybe that’s your problem.
Bazza @ 2:26 pm November 18th.
Can I suggest, with respect, that you check the BoM predictions made in Autumn this year for Winter, Spring and their % of certainty?
Then look at what actually occurred.
While I sincerely hope that BoM are getting better in this space because it would be most useful for all of us who live and work 24/7 with the vagaries of Aussie climate/weather/seasons, I would caution you and your level of confidence re this statement:
“And as for climate change demos, wait till the end of summer. The BoM latest forecast shows much of NE Australia at around 75% chance of above median max temperature.”
I am also, once again, very disappointed in the ‘tone’ of that whole comment and what you are attempting to imply.
I do still believe that it wouldn’t hurt you to read Cater’s book.
Volcanoes in Gakkel Ridge not responsible for melting ice.
Well, waddya know, Luke.
D’ya think though, that volcanoes might be a bit like ACO2?
One of the many small contributors?
But if your GHG theory has any wheels, more volcanoes = more CO2 = more warming.
And because you don’t know just how big that gas stove really is, it is another one of those known unknowns.
And Ian Plimer was a lot closer to the mark than you wackos give him credit for.
Just in case Bazza didn’t understand,
IF (?) Marohasy and Abbott have done further research on seasonal forecasting I would expect (as should Bazza) that they are going through the appropriate channels before they release any findings.
I also hope, along with my hope for BoM, that their work is becoming more useful and applicable re seasonal forecasting.
Wonderful to see OZ , Canada, Japan and others fighting back against this barking mad cult. Take a bow Tony Abbott’s coalition govt.
Great to see this idiocy and BS thrown in the gutter. I’m so happy I preferred the Coalition over the Labor morons.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/australia_leads_world_against_warming_madness/#commentsmore
At long last we have real leaders taking a stand on this voodoo science that can’t even endure a simple maths test. Go Tony.
CO2 from volcanoes > A CO2 has been shot down long ago. Give it away. Recycled denial. You’re getting worse.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/volcanic-co2/
@sd
“D’ya think though, that volcanoes might be a bit like ACO2?”
There seem to be some inconsistencies in Luke’s posts lately.
First he admonishes anyone quoting other than peer rev. papers and then he goes on citing wiki?
Sec, I’m sure he said on this page or prev. that CO2 emitted by “volcanic” eruption in the distant past caused a sudden 5C warming.
If it could’ve happened in the past why is it impossible now.
Volcanic CO2 is being dismissed by the warmists as ‘insignificant’ but as far as I know it’s not being measured emitted from land, but more importantly, from undersea volcanoes.
Just a bit puzzled by his inconsistency that’s all
Ah Luke – so now we are consulting a scientist who has extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties regarding volcanoes, and again it’s from 2008.
Monbiot from 2009, sheesh, that was the most disgusting act of attack journalism ever. Plimer kept holding up his book and neither attack dog had read it else they would have known he had a whole chapter on volcanoes.
Yea guys – you’re onto it – it’s volcanoes…. rush to Nature and publish
Plimer did a big runner – he couldn’t answer and tried to bluff. Done like a dinner.
Yes Jonathan, good point. Luke contradicts himself all the time.
And Plimer didn’t have to spell out what nobody knows:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/another-known-unknown-volcanic-outgassing-of-co2/
thanks for the link SD
don’t have time to visit many sites but while I was there I found this about
‘Cargo Cult Science’ it fits neatly in with some of the more philosophical postings we were reading here lately.
It’s worth a read!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/a-view-of-science-worth-reflecting-upon/
They’re quoting Watts on an evidence based blog. It’s a bit of a giggle isn’t it.
“don’t have time to visit many sites” so disinformation seems easier….. ROFL
It’s even funnier when the silliness is dissected.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/science-deniers-use-flawed-discarded.html
The ongoing chipmunk fest of nutty comments is the best laughs. JW and SD would fit right in.
The Cotwan and Way study busted by Steve McIntyre. The pause lives on.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013/#comments
Bob Tisdale tackles Mann’s latest delusional rubbish on Haiyan. What a con merchant.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/reality-is-absent-from-michael-manns-activist-article-on-typhoon-haiyan/#more-5645
Good grief Luke!
Hotwhopper?
You must be joking?
You’re becoming more pathetic and feeble with age, Luke.
Not to mention desperate, linking to a blog of some misogynist-screaming anonymity who, in this case, admits Watts quoted it straight. Most of the time she just rails for the sake of it.
Specially when, as Jonathan says, you were just making the same point yourself.
Yes Debbie – it’s a joke !
Bob Tisdale – “I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics in this post. This was pointed out to me a great number times by many different people in numerous comments received in the WattsUpWithThat cross post.The errors in that initial portion of the post were so many and so great that they detracted from the bulk of the post, ” – Neville’s evidence – ROFL !
so many and so great – hahahahahaha
Neville – just so we know where you are coming from pls explain Cowtan and Way and CA’s response. This will be good – expect either smoke or crickets.
Luke unlike you and yours Tisdale is an honest man and admits his mistakes. Just read his link and you might start to wake up.
Ditto read Steve’s link again and work it out for yourself.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013/#comments
“I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics ” yet data analysis is what he’s peddling – Neville you have to be utterly joking. Your usual junk sources.
So what you’re saying Neville is that haven’t got a clue what CA is saying. You haven’t got a foggy. This is shonky Neville at his best (worst). Spreading commentary that he doesn’t understand. What a fraud you are.
Well I’ll admit Bobs a rank amateur compared to your team. He has never used data upside down and used stupid proxies for the HS and used NH data to try and find a HS in the SH over the last 1000 years. Mann, Briffa, Gergis and Karoly etc are standing jokes througout the blogosphere or haven’t you noticed?
But most people are very thankful Bob hasn’t used the above con tricks to lie and corruptly defraud the public. More strength to his arm I say. Go Bob.
And unlike you Bob understands simple maths and has good english comprehension. If you can’t understand Steve’s post then go and get yourself an education.
I guess this will come as a surprise to you but 5% of 1.2% by 2020 delivers SFA CC by 2100 and an unmeasurable 0.0007c doesn’t help your absurd con re CAGW.
You’re that dumb that you highlight a 6% increase in co2 emissions to concentrate your tiny mind on and ignore the 94% that is really your problem.
But as I say you are dense and don’t have the maths skills of a 5 year old. But hey that’s your problem you dummy, so go away and display your ignorance somewhere else.
Wonderful news from Europe, carbon trading has hit the skids.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/london-bankers-abandon-trading-70-of-jobs-gone-its-over-says-executive/#comments
This is not the place for personal abuse. Either post information, comment on information, or be quiet.
Two excellent comments on the GWPF link regarding the pause.
Tonyb says:
November 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Hadley Cet from 1772 is a pretty reliable proxy for northern hemisphere temperatures.
It shows a very notable decline from around 2005
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Tonyb
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm
David Whitehouse writes:
“As we have said before in these pages, it is very curious that the global surface temperature for the last 16 years is flat given the increasing pressure of greenhouse forcing from the ever-rising concentrations of greenhouse gasses.”
Actually if David goes to Murry Salby’s lecture (quickest way google Murry Salby Hamburg) in April – he repeated the essence of that lecture recently in London and Edinburgh – he will find a clear explanation for this.
Murry shows that net CO2 emissions are dependent almost entirely on temperature and humidity (not on human emissions). CO2 increases as a function of the integral of the temperature anomaly:
When temperature rose for two decades approximately linearly, then CO2 rose approximately quadratically. Now temperature has levelled off, CO2 continues to increase linearly. This neatly fits the data and the integral.
If temperature starts to fall linearly, CO2 will level off, if temperatures ‘plummet’ (quadratically), then CO2 will start to fall linearly etc.
Murry also shows how the falling C13/C12 ratio, often claimed as the ‘smoking gun’ of human emissions, does NOT fit the human emission signal, but does fit the natural emission signal (nearly all organic in origin) driven by temperature and humidity.
Bob Tisdale finds more problems with the Cowton and Way paper. Ditto Judith Curry.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/on-cowtan-and-ray-2013-coverage-bias-in-the-hadcrut4-temperature-series-and-its-impact-on-recent-temperature-trends/
Luke @ 9:20
Phew!
Thank goodness for that!
It looked like you were claiming that Hotwhopper site held some type of unquestionable authority.
I note that the deltoids like to comment there and vice versa.
“I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-it-doesnt-exist-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2075420.html
Ahhh sp, but will you be around in a 100 years time to call them to account?
Luke, our Docter Who time traveller back ter the PETM tells us that, 55million years
ago, there’s un-eqivocable evidence that Cee- o- Two CAUSED a TIPPING POINT –
event – gasp. a 13 year climate shift, well, not boiling oceans but oceans turned
ACIDIC and an un-rquivocable 5′ sst rise. ter boot O M – G!
“I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time.”
What an amazingly stupid comment – the old initial conditions versus boundary conditions stupidity. And with some verballing and framing thrown in “absolute precision ”
Whoever said all that is a nong.
Beth speak English – I didn’t tell you that – the scientists who you haven’t read seriously did.
I suppose ya gotta laugh. The UN has demanded that business hang, draw and quarter themselves on the altar of CAGW.
And all for the princely return of ZIP on their investment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/united-nations-climate-conference-tells-business-support-us-on-climate-change/#more-97752
Looks like Prince Charles has reading comprehension skills as well. Another good mate for bazza and Lukey.
But to be fair there’s a lot of it around, see the UN , most govts, 50% of scientists etc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/as_a_prince_charles_makes_a_rotten_scientist/#commentsmore
There’s a lot of it around all right.
For instance this morning’s min temp for Brisbane was 17.8, slightly below average but every temp broadcast since that min is claimed to be “above average” by one or two degrees.
Does anyone know how these “average” hourly broadcasts are calculated?
Are they from averages of hourly obs for each day of the year for the last century or so?
Or they just a statistical “average” for each month of the year extrapolated out to each hour?
I suspect it is the latter.
I have written twice to the BoM to get an explanation but no answer was always the stern reply.
Does anybody know?
It’s beyond my understanding Spangled, but have you tried a phone call to the BOM?
BTW it’s good to see Werner Brozek expose more of the absurdity of the SKS’s Cowtan and Way study.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/could-the-perspectives-of-cowtan-and-way-negate-rsss-17-year-pause-now-includes-all-october-data-except-hadcrut/#more-97781
Good luck with getting that answer SD!
The usual MO is to tell you it is on the website.
The problem is. . .what you’re specifically asking for isn’t there.
There is an overload of info but it’s already calculated into averages.
More good stuff from McIntyre on the origins of the Cowtan and Way study. Amusing that nobody can lay a glove on McIntyre after all the years of pig ignorant abuse from fools who don’t even understand which way is up. And in Mann’s case that is literal.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/#more-18621
I’m still waiting for an explanation in Neville’s own words on Cowtan and Way. But as we know Neville is a clueless anti-scientist who prefers proven disinformation sites to science. Come on Neville don’t obfuscate give us your science advice instead of being as shill for deniers.
Filed under science in the MSM today:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/bandt-raises-bushfires-climate-link-again/story-e6frfku9-1226761957588
As was pointed out by Jen. . .perhaps Bandt et al could do themselves a favour and read Underwood’s work?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2013/nov/17/tony-abbott-climate-denier-coal-socialism
Wouldn’t real science reports be more appropriate under the ‘science’ heading rather than what can only be described as ‘political science’ and/or ‘environmental political advocacy’ ?
What a malevolent dweeb that Bandt is. Not green in the least, maybe not even red deep down: just malevolent and ambitious. He may never get his chance, but that’s been said before…
There was a dopey sincerity about Brown, and Milne is green, for the little that’s worth. The child senator is vacant possession. But Bandt is malevolence with ambition. Watch him.
Good stuff Neville.
What has the warmist hypocrites really worried is that the great icon of the hottest year evah!!! [1998] AKA the Hockey Stick [MBH98] as put forward by the great climate shonk himself which was instrumental in so much of the worlds economic pain has been finally thrown under a bus by the IPCC.
Even if it’s 15 years too late.
This is something that will reverberate forever through the halls of CAGW alarmist science that they will never recover from.
Sadly, however, it is making little difference to the CAGW alarmist religion and may even be having the reverse effect in that even their scientists have to simply become more religious and revert to outright denial instead of science to make their points.
The evidence of that, now, is everywhere.
The time for a wide ranging Royal Commission into climate science is overdue.
The world can’t afford to let this religious propaganda play itself out.
“The time for a wide ranging Royal Commission into climate science is overdue.”
Well they won’t be inviting you or Neville will they? And it will be great to sceptics roasted for their utter nonsense.
Perhaps SD can explain Cowtan and Way as Neville is too stupid to do so?
Luke, Cowtan and Way reckon the satellites are likely more correct than the extrapolators.
Low latitude, nothing happening, high lat, a bit of warming.
All good, save your dough!
Move along, move along!
Just think, if we could only privatise the ABC, stop paying their presidential salaries, stop the NBN from rolling out cable at 2.5bil per house, stop the boats, the carbon tax, the RET etc we might even pay off our half tril debt.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/just-five-territory-homes-on-network/story-e6frgaif-1226763805103#
Sorry, that 2.5 bil should be 2.5 mil.
New motto for the ABC:
“There is no skeptic at the end of a money hose.”
Werner Brozek explains CW13 in more detail:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/could-the-perspectives-of-cowtan-and-way-negate-rsss-17-year-pause-now-includes-all-october-data-except-hadcrut/
Spot on Robert, but there are plenty at the end of a volunteer’s fire hose.
re Debbie and Robert on Bandt.
Bandt reads Macchievelli for lessons
in expediency and cunning, Bandt’s
primer, Orwell’s ‘1984’ the manual
by the Ministery of Truth on efficacy
of slogans.’The Science is Settled.’ And
lest you fergit, we’ll flood the media with
our massaged message. Underwood?
It’s down the memory hole with what
he’s got ter say. or make a bush fire
of his vanities.
jest-a -serf.
Yep Beth,
remarkably similar to ‘1984’.
luke issues a challenge:
“I’m still waiting for an explanation in Neville’s own words on Cowtan and Way.”
And again:
“Perhaps SD can explain Cowtan and Way as Neville is too stupid to do so?”
Why C&W are wrong or at least irrelevant:
(A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4
Explain in your own words luke why the equation explains why C&W are wrong or at least irrelevant.
These blokes were never into this anyway but now they’ve got an excuse:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/19/global-warming-professor-kevin-anderson-cuts-back-on-washing-and-showering-to-fight-climate-change-admits-at-un-climate-summit-that-is-why-i-smell/
Hurry up luke, put in an appearance, or apologise to spangles and Neville.
Not discussing with you Cohenite – you need to be apologising for your pitiful electoral thrashing of codger candidates and your total lack of credibility as a political force – Neville’s making the running here – he daily posts wads of crap he doesn’t understand. Time he either admits by his absent answer that he’s a clueless dimwit or he puts up.
Surely a little precis of C&W and why they’re wrong isn’t too much to ask for. Educate me Neville.
Sound of diversions …. smoke overlaid over crickets.
“you need to be apologising for your pitiful electoral thrashing of codger candidates and your total lack of credibility as a political force”
That’s a big call in this country; “pitiful” compared to who? Never mind all is explained here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15671
Familiarise yourself with the Droop Quota luke.
Luke I think Werner Brozek does the best job on C&W. But if you can’t understand him then try, McIntyre or Tisdale or etc
I mean why should I do your thinking for you? But let’s see you answer Coher’s question. And let’s face it any bloke who thinks the number 6 is greater than 94 is going to have a hard time comprehending or understanding anything.
So Neville is unable to understand what he’s posting. Your standards are disgraceful. So essentially you’re prepared to drop anything in here without knowing what it means. The sceptic gold standard.
Shonk.
Neville plays Luke at his own game. Luke is most upset.
Luke I understand C&W no problems. But we know you don’t understand simple sums or simple concepts or simple logic and reasoning.
We also know you still clutch onto Mann’s HS fraud even though the IPCC has dropped their former iconography promoting this nonsense.
Then there’s the Himalayan glaciers con and fraud. They stated there would be zip ice left by 2035 and when Pachy ( head honcho of IPCC) was questioned about this fraud he stated that any criticism was just voodoo science. What a hoax, what a con.
Then we had the polar bear drivel even when everyone knew that the pop in 1960 was about 5,000 but is 20,000 to 25,000 today. More con and fraud from govts, IPCC, many scientists etc.
The very latest SLR trends and studies show SLR will be similar to the trend of the 20th century. It could be as little as 7 inches or perhaps 1 foot. Even the very models used by the IPCC show zip problems of dangerous SLR for the next 300 years.
But let’s see you answer Cohers.
Thanks to Toby at the other thread we have this top post from Lomborg in the OZ.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/a-green-future-for-all/story-fni1hfs5-1226765589148
Just think after all the BS of Kyoto and we still have an increase in emissions of 57%. But the USA have very successful although they refused to sign up to this silly garbage.
More of Luke and bazza’s bizzare maths again. Go OZ, go Japan, go Canada, go NZ and go the yanks.
More clueless garbage from the MET office. That 2004 to 2014 forecast was a real bummer. And this is the sort of nonsense that OZ relied on to spend/waste billions $ on a return of SFA on our idiot investment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/ooops-met-office-decadal-model-forecast-for-2004-2014-falls-flat/#more-97939
Yes,
All the rhetoric and handwaving that decrees if nations don’t sign up then it means, they don’t care, they will be responsible for more bushfires, typhoons etc (if not even the current ones), that they are at the behest of bogeymen like ‘big oil’, that they are causing the planet to die, that CO2 emmissions will rise catastrophically in those nations etc etc etc is NOT(!!!!!) what the numbers are saying. In fact, the nations who haven’t signed up have numbers that stack up just as well if not better than those who have.
It seems to be reasonably common knowledge now that global temp anomalies have been basically static for 15-17 years. We have mentioned a few years ago the impact of Pinatubo , it is generally acknowledged that a large eruption such as Pinatubo will cool global temp for a few years by around 0.5c. So if we add 0.5 c to temps in the mid 90’s to counter this cooling influence it seems to me we actually have a period of over 20 years where there has been no real warming. Making the correlation even weaker with co2. A few threads ago a number of us pointed out that co2 and temp are not well correlated over the last century or so.
Luke insists they are but I for one cant see it. they have moved together but they have also spent about as much time moving apart. The charts that many provided including Luke himself made my point very clearly.
if you actually include the volcanic cooling into the equation the correlation is even poorer.
In real science when the facts don’t match the theory something is wrong, in a pseudo science that is unfalsifiable inconvenient facts seem to be glossed over as irrelevant or cherry picking.
A classic case of theory induced blindness?
Neville – please explain your C&W posts or can’t you?
Highly intelligent comment Toby – masterful. Yes I can’t see any correlation either.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif Denial is wonderful as it comes in many colours.
When CO2 was a steady 280ppm for centuries, temperatures still bounced up and down.
When CO2 rose enormously [in comparison] after WW2, temps didn’t change their habits:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png
Today’s contribution filed under ‘science’.
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/11/21/3895364.htm
luke, that sks graph is terrible; here’s a better one:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif
As you can see both CO2 and temp go up during the 20thC but that parameter is deceptive for 2 reasons.
Firstly, temperature moves first.
Secondly there are major periods where the 2 are going in opposite directions hence the R2 of 0.44 which is less than a coin toss.
Debbie thanks for sending that ABC link. You just have to wonder about the mindset of the person writing such idiotic nonsense.
This person actually thinks that OZ can make a difference to CAGW. What an embarrassment to OZ and their ABC that someone could write such stupid drivel.
But then again this is the clueless rubbish that Luke and bazza follow as well. Just so happy that the coalition are in govt and I hope they continue to dismantle all of Labor’s CC dysfunctions. Go Tony.
SD and Cohers are unbelievable. What shonks. SD http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/central-england-temperature/ and delete before 1772 as data are crap.
Cohenite – smooths it all way and truncates the data. More sceptic tool in trade bullshit. What bullshit.
The relevant graphs for “no-correlations la-la-lah I’m-not-listening” TOBY is http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/forcing_v_temp.gif
and http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1964_2008.gif
Look Mum – no solar !
Neville has had plenty of time to write a little precis. I think poor Nev is a bit thick. So if you are a bit thick Nev. I wouldn’t be posting what you don’t understand.
This is the real curve Luke. No correlation. Yes, temperature has gone up since 1960 and CO2 has gone up since 1960 – but they don’t relate to each other.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
And don’t forget this latest one:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_75-nov-16-07-49.jpg
Good graphs Spangled and John Sayers, but remember Lukey doesn’t care much for facts or simple maths or logic and reasoning.
BTW I see luke still hasn’t answered Cohers. Geeeezzzz Luke you must be thick or something.
You people really are fools beyond all belief. JS puts up data like that and announces there is no correlation. OK guys – yea sure. Dream on in your pig ignorance and do please do help out and testify if there is ever a climate commission. Please oh please go along and put up your views. Please do. And absolutely use as much Goddard as you possibly can.
“Yes, temperature has gone up since 1960 and CO2 has gone up since 1960 – but they don’t relate to each other.” THE DRONGO COMMENT OF ALL TIME EVER ! fucking hilarious
Hey Neville – where’s my explanation? Don’t worry about Cohers – he’s not going to save you from your disgusting and evil behaviour of spreading disinformation. You deceitful vacuous little shonk.
John “I can’t see a relationship !” Sayers
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/plot/esrl-co2/normalise
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA (no correlation there) HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Gosh poor little Lukey seems to be a little upset ——-AGAIN.
Here’s a good bucket tipping on the CSIRO by one of their Chief research scientists Dr. Art Raiche.
I wonder if Lukey is one of those parasites he refers to that poured into the CSIRO after it ditched science for politics?
Here’s his excellent speech at the No Carbon Tax rally in Canberra 2011.
Surprise, surprise another new study finds that the Greenland ice sheet was smaller 3,000 to 5,000 years ago.
Must have been the Polar bears driving around in SUVs or the eskimos or mammoths farting or etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/study-greenland-ice-sheet-was-smaller-3000-5000-years-ago-than-today/#more-97981
Back at 12:48pm Friday, Toby is on a steep learning curve having discovered that taking out the natural variation from Pinatubo cooling he can oh so cleverly extend back the not so steep hiatus. Next he will discover that taking out recent extreme ENSO natural variation he can put the steepness back in so that we are sadly still on the trend established decades ago. And I did find it ironic he used a Pinatubo temperature reduction of 0.5C which supports a 3C rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2 as the effect of volcanic eruptions. But he has beliefs that free range away from the evidence.
Luke,
No one said there was NO (!) relationship.
You are basically arguing with yourself at present.
It’s not that difficult to understand the point made by John et al.
Luke, sceptics understand that while CO2 might cause warming, warming sure causes CO2.
You alarmists insist that it has a runaway, catastrophic effect but that is not happening and has never happened. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
When it comes to many of the issues that I care about, particularly environmental issues, the ABC mostly broadcasts pure propaganda. When it’s journalists are provided with an alternative perspective it either attacks or ignores (remember the unprovoked Media Watch attack on me!). So I’ve just signed the following petition…
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/tony-abbott-privatise-the-abc-2?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created
perhaps baz it is selective cherry picking to mention the impact of Pinatubo . I have blindly regurgitated the 0.5c cooling effect.
But I still struggle to see this close correlation that you blokes see in co2 and temp in the 20th century. the first graph luke gave me last week proved my point, then he gave me a normailised graph…why? why is it the data always needs to be manipulated to make a warmers point? sure sometimes it is reasonable but you d have to be a mug to trust the way most science is presented nowadays on any topic. particularly with a pseudo science that is apparently unfalsifiable.
I would add that we discussed this about 8 years ago, so its not some new idea of mine or anybody else’s…..it just helps makes the point I see as clearly visible…a relatively poor correlation between co2 and temp over the 20thc.
Signed as well thx Jen, some of their docco’s are excellent, and I still think its the only news to watch, but they are political and environmental advocates with no balance and publishing treasonous information on spying is a final act. They should be charged in breach of section 79 of the Crimes Act.
Oh dear now Toby is complaining about a scale adjustment. Give it away old mate.
And then he protests “a relatively poor correlation between co2 and temp over the 20thc” Wreally?
What a clown – haven’t learn nothing and had his senses closed – pig ignorantly ignored all that had been posted. You are a solid moronic sad denier mate.
Toby now having lost the CO2 relationship issue wants to charge the ABC with treason. – Yes folks we’re not mental or anything. I say licence sceptics not guns.
“you d have to be a mug to trust the way most science is presented nowadays on any topic” I wonder how the modern world works? Must be by magic.
I must copy this post from Joanne Nova’s site – this is similar to Luke’s CO2 theory. 🙂
“It’s little furry mammals causing global warming. With the introduction of rabbits around the globe and quickly increasing in numbers closely resembles the graph of increases in temperature. The drop off mid century was from Myxomatosis, before the populations recovered and continued to increase. the recent hiatus is due to the Calicivirus.
Why else would a Mammalogist be debating a matter of Carbon Dioxide?
He’s a bunny lover and wants to protect them.
How’s that?”
Luke kindly make a point that actually shows co2 is correlated closely or shut up. have you got an argument that you can explain to me? if not F.O.! as usual you claim a victory when no victory is obvious at all….in fact I would suggest that others have also shot you down in flames…go and have a beer to get over your hangover so that you can be reasonable and then come back and pls explain how it is you see a close correlation when so many other charts show otherwise when they are not adjusted. Why do you need to adjust the data ? you can abuse me …I don’t care….but pls make your point clear otherwise I can only laugh because to my eye and many here my point is obvious!?
remember your hero Baz has a rule that if you go the “ad hom “you lose…and you seem to be doing that a lot lately?
So you think its ok for the ABC to publish this info and you don’t think it has damaged our relationship? And I suppose you think it is unusual to be spying in this form?
Luke, you frequently make a point that seems obtuse or unreasonable..ie suggesting that the warm periods of the MWP, RWP \and MWP are unsubstantiated and they all are based on 1 ice core sample…which is pure rubbish….and you believe that has won you the argument?!
clearly many believe these periods were as warm or warmer, even the IPCC did in its first report. there is lots of evidence, even if the evidence for the southern hemisphere is not as strong….but there are many good reasons for that …such as a lack of studies in the S.H….
one thing is for sure, you can not say those periods were not warmer.
or typhoon haiyan and linking to a study of water temp that focuses on 100m depth when the rest of the data supported the opposite case!?
theory induced blindness?
Luke,
There is a massive difference between ‘the way the science is presented’ and your ad homs.
Once again. . . it’s not that hard to comprehend Toby’s point.
As well as the ‘usual suspects’ attempting to blame Abbot for the recent NSW bushfires (and even vaguely the recent Typhoon) only a few WEEKS (!) after the election. . .they are now trying to pretend that it’s Abbot’s fault that there has been some phone tapping happening . . .as if it all started in the last month.
Those blatantly political statements by Bandt et al re the bushfires and those blatantly political reports that I have linked in the last few days are all filed under ‘SCIENCE’.
Do you think that’s a good way to present ‘SCIENCE’ ?
Toby you’re just a denio-bot – the ice core graph doesn’t include the present. One tires of sceptic bullshit.
The evidence which you never read – the real literature not ongoing receycled sceptic disinformation. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html There was no globally synchronous MWP or LIA. If so publish your refutation to this paper.
Here you go Toby – and no solar driver
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/plot/esrl-co2/normalise
It’s outstanding !
“There was no globally synchronous MWP or LIA.” Of course not. There is no globally synchronous Modern Warming. (Think Steven Schneider and the coolists back in the 70s. They weren’t entirely making it up.) But the world has had more warm times than cold times since 1980, especially in the north. Dunno about that big heap of Antarctic ice though. (Hey, speaking of the north, remember when everyone just knew that the Vikings got about more when it was warm? Whew, took a lot of spin and Wikipedia rewrites to kill that one. The things we do for the hockeystick!)
Anyway, let’s hope it stays a bit warm. China can be unbearable during global cooling. You get famine and drought like in 1960, but it goes on and bloody on. The LIA meant serial monsoon failures in China, especially in the late Ming: six decades of climate misery! The early 1600s are yet another era we don’t want our climate manipulators to dial us back to.
Well Robby – thanks for working out at last that major changes in energy balance shifts the Earth’s climate in interesting regional ways. I imagine with 7 – 9 billion humans on board silly codgers and dumb serfs are keen to be personally responsible for major changes. You know -throw the switch to vaudeville. Why not?
And being a codgerist anecdote lover I don’t believe you’ve given us the tour of MWP mega-droughts yet? You know – the old warming is universally good meme.
And save Antarctica the current warming is global unless you’re the sort of denier that likes to play going down the up escalator. Of yea – you are – we already know. Game layers and deniers all.
Tim Flannery is back on his lying spree again. But this time it’s more lies and garbage about electric cars.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/tesla_flanster/
When it comes to correlation, Murry Salby has a more accurate view:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image00411.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/excerpts-from-salbys-slide-show/#more-98011
The MWP was not global. Liket the LIA, It only took in Europe, Asia, the Americas, Australia, Africa and the Norther Polar Region. Warming universally good? I assume that because you refer to the MWP mega-droughts you are starting to grasp that there was indeed an MWP? In any case, the mega-droughts of the MWP were clearly as lethal as those of the LIA in East Asia. So drought is yet another occurrence which can’t be turned into a neat mechanism for the kiddie climate console. It happens in different places for different reasons. As we (and N. America) parched in the 1930s, China had its horrific floods.
As for the rest of Luke’s garbled text, I guess it means he’s not happy to be contradicted and he’ll come up with the reasons later. How does our Supercell manage to relegate enormous fact to the level of “codgerist anecdote” while believing in hockey sticks with bristlecone handles? Never forget, this is the same analytically minded guy who screamed: “THE WEATHER IS AGAINST YOU!”
I could talk about people’s ages and “defense mechanisms”, and “confirmation bias” and generally try to pathologise those who disagree with me. Instead, I’ll just disagree back. That’s a lot healthier than the creepy pathologising, don’t you think?
The MWP can be found in both SH and NH and ditto the LIA. I’ve been trying to use the software at co2 Science to check OZ temps since 1880 to 2008.
This is supposed to be had 3 and Giss. Here goes.
http://co2science.org/data/temperatures/temps_plot.php
Well I’m sorry but it didn’t link to my OZ calcs, just reverted to the start page again. GRRRR.
Here are Co2 Science links to all the studies covering the LIA from NH and SH.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/subject_l.php
And ditto for the Med WP. http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php Heaps of studies to prove both the LIA and Med WP.
Luke,
you are arguing about methodology. Each different graph uses the same information and the different results are due to using different but entirely valid methodology. All of it is interesting and no doubt assists a better understanding.
The ultimate judge is real time/raw data. . . not a politically based meme that claims a consensus that ‘the science is settled’.
There are so many different representations and so many different error margins etc.
I note that you chose not to answer my question re the way ‘science’ is being presented?
While you may not like Bolt’s et al style. . .at least they’re a little more honest about the actual topic they’re debating ie NOT SCIENCE!
Luke is still pretending that the MWP is a figment of imagination?
lolololol.
Ahh, wipe my eyes, from the tears of mirth.
Thanks, Luke.
Now you will say the LIA was a figment as well? Or the RWP?
God, I love the AGW kooks when they are on a roll.
Have a great one, etc.
I was listening to ABC 24 radio this morning and they played a segment from Parliament re Barnaby Joyce.
It totally cracked me up.
He was talking about “Government Change Deniers” and explaining how to spot a “Government Change Denier” etc. . .
Very funny.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article3929594.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_11_22
And here is one of today’s MSM reports filed under ‘SCIENCE’.
The MSM report was in the times. Enough inferred. Maybe it should be filed under antiscience. That issue had a more interesting article referring to the British conservative PM. “Britain should keep cutting carbon emissions even if there is only a 60 per cent chance that they are causing climate change, David Cameron said yesterday”. I reckon my % is closer to 100% as based on IPCC. I appreciate there are many astute risk managers ( well, maybe 3 or 4) populating this sight. We would all be curious as to what their % chance is equivalent to the 60%?
Maybe it should be filed under ‘politics’ Bazza?
Or perhaps ‘entertainment’?
Always go for 97%. As in: “97% of risk managers agree with Francois Hollande that the way to a safe climate is to put your billions into the UN today. Say goodbye to all those annoying, messy floods, droughts and tornadoes! Your climate will be as safe as a parked Volvo, and your grandchildren will just adore its stability.”
97% is compelling but realistic. Whether you’re into climate panic or percentage of customers satisfied with the rich but mild flavour of the finest Virginia leaf. 97%…every time.
I know this isn’t the proper place but here goes. The Nielsen poll is unbelievable, if not the OZ electorate has gone bonkers and we’re all doomed.
Just think of Shorten as PM and Plibersek as deputy or would it be Milne?
Here’s the latest Essential poll. http://essentialvision.com.au/essential-research Interesting to read through voters thoughts on all the issues.
Bazza,
As Robert points out. . .your question re % & risk management is close to meaningless.
It is just a statistical/methodology question that attempts to come up with a number and doesn’t really apply to the practical application of risk management at all.
That mindset/ideology sees people like Bandt making rather outrageous and impractical comments such as the ones he made re the recent bushfires and ‘climate criminals’.
Neville.
Considering the recent landslide result, it would be highly unlikely that the coalition would be worrying about the polls at this point. Maybe they might hold some concerns about 12 months out from the next election.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/11/25/07/03/carbon-tax-repeal-popular-poll
This is probably the result that is relevant to what is being discussed at this thread.
Newspoll a month ago. Coalition up 2.5% since election.
http://polling.newspoll.com.au.tmp.anchor.net.au/image_uploads/131006%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf
Luke why have you shown me 1960-2010 when we are talking 1900-now?
Why did you normalise your earlier graph to try and make your point?
without playing with the data there is no strong correlation in the twentieth century? you are denying what your eyes must surely see?
Can’t be bothered Toby – I’ve pasted heaps and we’re going over and over material as you’re obfuscating. Believe whatever your want. 1960 till present has no solar driver – the correlation is extraordinary. Don’t normalise if it makes you happy. Just easier to view.
Also compelling http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif
And moreover because there are mutiple forcings http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png/250px-Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Which gives http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/forcing_v_temp.gif
A nice summary from SkS – “So we see that climate isn’t controlled by a single factor – there are a number of influences that can change the planet’s radiative balance. However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.”
Debs is into rank silliness “oooo it’s just a difference in methodology” says Debs. No its’ not Debs.
Anyway this whole debate is drivel. I can see why you’re deniers.
Ponder the beauty of GCMs – it’s just a control knob Robby – anyone can do it – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C-lWrvL-P_w
At last, a use for GCMs! Screensavers for non-bilious geeks.
Luke: “A nice summary from SkS – “So we see that climate isn’t controlled by a single factor – there are a number of influences that can change the planet’s radiative balance. However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.”
Well who would have thunk there are a number of influences that can change the planet’s radiative balance – where would we be without Luke and SkS (the sciencey site used by 97% of scientists )
Morgan Poll still has LNP ahead. http://www.roymorgan.com.au/findings/5306-morgan-poll-federal-voting-intention-november-18-2013-201311180454
Funny most people I know are white hot about Labor and greens blocking the co2 tax in the senate.
Even Labor people I know don’t support the co2 tax and think Abbott is doing a fair job. Most understand the Indonesion beat up is tripe and all know the bugging happened under Rudd and Gillard.
Robert thinks physics like this just appears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UhTEhhZeMfE#t=12
I see Neville is squirming. We know why ! Justify justify justify but but but but …..
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-storms-ahead-20131124-2y43r.html Extraordinary ….
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fairfaxnielsen-poll-voters-want-carbon-tax-gone-but-reject-tony-abbotts-direct-action-policy-20131124-2y41i.html#poll
“for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.”
Yeah and for those last 35 years we also haven’t had any cyclones in this neck o’ the woods whereas prior to that they were regular occurrences.
Aren’t we supposed to get more and worse?
Could there possibly be other explanations?
BS Luke!
I think you must be one of those “Government Change Deniers” that Barnaby Joyce was talking about in parliament just recently.
Of course it’s about methodology and what you are focusing on. As you and Toby have been busy proving, just changing the stop/start dates can alter the results.
And this comment has gotta be right up there on the “rank silliness” scale:
“No its’ not Debs.”
🙂
Anyway. . .it looks like Antarctica is doing as its told and is not sticking with the program lately (and yes I’m being sarcastic):
http://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/20007858/heavy-ice-delays-australian-antarctic-icebreaker-aurora-australis/
Fairfax, SkS and atmosphere screensavers which didn’t just appear…food for the mind! Rabbit food, that is.
Hey remember when I said that after months of wetter than average 3 month outlooks for my area, the BoM finally punted on drier than average? It worked! (Luckily, I remembered where I put my brolley after all those months.)
!!!! Sorry!!!!
I meant to type
Antarctica is NOT doing as its told …..
“just changing the stop/start dates can alter the results” which is what lammie deniers do ! get real Debs
Luke,
🙂 🙂 🙂
That is hilarious!
GET REAL ????????
ROFLMAO!!!
You have made my day. . .thank you.
luke pontificates:
“1960 till present has no solar driver – the correlation is extraordinary. Don’t normalise if it makes you happy. Just easier to view.”
Crap:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf
The “correlation is extraordinary”;
http://quadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/chart-stockwell.jpg
luke pontificates again:
“However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.”
Crap:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1959/mean:12/offset:300
Pathetic luke, do better.
Just an interesting observation or three:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/twenty-degrees-of-global-cooling-since-kennedy/
http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Cohenite throws the switch to vaudeville – it’s getting sillier – I actually got an r squared of 0.9 with my model of cum-Denier-Stupidity versus temperature –
cumTSI -HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA
Hey Debs – but it’s just a different methodology Debs – and I’m only interested in the broad social implications of random methodologies of crawdad fishing in mound springs.
It’s sad isn’t it – Cohenite once on his game is now reduced to playing numb nuts with SD and Neville.
Perhaps more relevant to the later thread regarding scientific method and philosophy AND the funding thereof.
I read this morning on the ABC news, that 60 scientists are off to Mawson’s base to fill in the gaps in AGW knowledge. It is being rationalised by quoting circulation models and scaring us will more and more terrifying droughts.
UNSW is quoted as being the backer of it all, though I see buckets of our tax money being thrown in.
The 60 even includes ” tree ring experts ” .
Now that the Productivity Commission, ( How much do they cost us ? ), wants us to work to the age of 70 and I can’t get onto the GBR gravy train, can I please go to Antarctica ?
After all , if I am required to pay tax for the whole of my three score years and ten, it is only fair that in my latter years I could get to see some of it being spent.
As a silviculture and timber expert in my younger years
OOPS pushed the wrong button.
Was attempting to say that – As a timber expert , show me the Antarctic forest and I can tell you a lot about how it has been growing lately.
Everything from prevailing winds, to where the front of the tree is.
( As some of you may be aware people always go BEHIND a tree to do their business )
A glimpse into the hypocrisy of CC conferences. Very interesting first few comments:
http://theconversation.com/flying-blind-global-climate-talks-are-getting-us-nowhere-20583?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+26+November+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+26+November+2013+CID_0015461ffc05f371a8d77b84f10895b7&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Flying%20blind%20global%20climate%20talks%20are%20getting%20us%20nowhere
Yes I’m sure timber expert Ian knows everything about the Permian and Triassic greenhouse and Antarctic forests in the dark polar winters (not!).
Yes the massive changes in the polar vortex related to rainfall in Australia probably have no interest. Another day among the ant-science rednecks. As for droughts well yes exactly but not the sort of material Ian would ever read being a later Permian tree ring expert.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2012/ice-core-reveals-unusual-decline-in-eastern-australian-rainfall
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2006-2010/issue-18-2010/glaciology/antarctic-ice-cores-shed-light-on-western-australian-drought
Yes digging ice core holes in blizzards is a big lark – just like a holiday at the beach. Or kayaking with Robby or making lammies with Debs.
As for previous Drongo-esque comments on SW Pacific cyclones. Pity about the facts. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00077.1
And are our NZ sceptics letting us down. Haven’t informed us of the latest massive evidence for greenhouse nearby http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/35/8/699.abstract
Golly gee – where’s Bob?
Geezzzz Luke you’re hopeless, go and enrole in a kindy maths course. Meanwhile the latest Newspoll today finds the LNP leading 52% to 48%.
Interestingly Luke’s idiot Greens vote has dropped 2% since the last NPoll in October.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/newspoll_coalition_52_to_48_ahead/
LATEST. . .MASSIVE. . .evidence Luke?
2007 and all the attendant caveats and uncertainties?
Maybe you need to pay more attention to your use of adjectives?
6 years old and the ranges & uncertainties don’t really match up with ‘latest’ & ‘massive’.
That’s not saying that the paper isn’t interesting BTW. . . but it isn’t really supporting your assertion.
And what does Bob have to do with it?
Despite the mad forecasts of the alarmists the hurricane drought continues in the Atlantic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/25/2013-slowest-hurricane-season-in-30-years/#more-98123
Good graphs by Pielke Jnr to back up the data. All this is the exact opposite of the predictions of serial liars Gore and Hansen etc.
Hi Luke,
What on Earth are ancient extinct Antarctic forests going to tell us about the time between Mawson’s expedition and now ?
Or are they going to look at the tree rings and ‘confirm’ that all that extinction is a ‘warning’ for us ?
You bloody bet they are.
The whole Antarctic continent may not have even been in the same place.
All the undoubted vulcanism at the time must have had causes and effects , beside acidic rain and out of control climatic events.
The question is, where does observation of fossils leave off and computer modelling of Australia’s climate take over, or get bent together.
Luke , I have to tell you that those scientific zealots are not exactly going to starve , or work themselves to death.
After all , they will have to look their best for the ABC documentaries which will inevitably flow forth.
And we already know that if Mawson’s observations don’t fit the model, they will like Sturt’s, be deemed to be inaccurate and unreliable.
So why 60 bloody scientists ? – So that their observations are seen to be thorough , while Mawson’s limited resources are just, well I ask you , how could he be thorough ?
Ian your comments are simply pig ignorant drivel and not even worth addressing. Perhaps tree rings are a small component of a wider work program. Go back to the timber yard and play with your 4 x 2 and support the LNP’s wedding and footy final travel budget.
Yes starving and working themselves to death is very sensible. Clown you are mate.
“The question is, where does observation of fossils leave off and computer modelling of Australia’s climate take over, or get bent together.”
Random shit meaningless comment.
Top comment and advice from Judith Curry to the Mann fraudster.
JC message to Michael Mann: Up the level of your scientific game when discussing climate change with the public. Most importantly, stop trashing other scientists that disagree with you. It reminds the public of Climategate and all of the irresponsible and unethical practices that are the root source of why they don’t trust climate scientists. You continue to damage the credibility of climate science in ways that you apparently can’t imagine.
Go Judith, what a woman.
As if “oh I’m not really an advocate” Curry can talk after her latest stadium paper was shredded as bunk.
Careful Neville – JC would think you’re an idiot for what you believe in. Wouldn’t snuggle up – you’ll only get chomped.
Hmmmm?
Methinks I see alarming symptoms of ‘government change denial’.
Hi Luke,
” play with your 4 x 2 and support the LNP’s wedding and footy final travel budget.”
It is the LNP AGW budget that I am questioning here. Surely you do not believe that this stuff is partisan.
And surely you do believe that this expedition of 60 experts in climate science is going to return with any findings against AGW theory.
Not even teeny weeny ones.
“Yes starving and working themselves to death is very sensible.”
Spare the sarcasm mate, you are the one suggesting that they will be working themselves into the ground, taking ice cores etc.
I think they and perhaps you, like most of the politicians who support them with our money, could do with a week or two of actual physical work.
Maybe UNSW would be better to follow the example of Melbourne Uni last week. Whose exhaustive study discovered that keeping children busy , kept them out of trouble.
Much less expensive , just as preconceived in its results, and just as useless to our future.
They and you would then see what a holiday they are having. At our expense.
Luke, in the most heavily populated part of Australia that is subjected to cyclones, ie SEQ-NNSW there has not been a real one for 37 years.
Cyclonic activity world wide has been falling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page
Gold Coast ratepayers are being forced to spend their money to replicate a surf break at Kirra Point that was the result of ’60s cyclones and didn’t exist before or since.
You should always try living in the real world. Solves a lot of problems at a fraction of the price.
And more spec on the PETM eh, Luke. That 55 mya scent is a bit old and cold.
Maybe they should try kriging.
It’s called cooking the weather:
Here’s a graph showing cumulative adjustments to the USHCN subset of the entire US COOP surface temperature network done by Zeke Hausfather and posted recently on Lucia’s Blackboard:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ushcn-adjustments1.png
That’s amusing luke; your PETM paper; there is a host of papers which clearly show the carbon injection was AFTER the warming event but I can’t be bothered posting right now. But what your paper shows is that nature can be a major source of C12 and therefore atmospheric C13 depleting CO2.
Well done.
More totalitarian alarmism, don’t they just love the lack of freedom and total control over people’s lives?
Luke would love this bloke’s point of view.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/sleepwalking-to-extinction-or-maybe-communism/#comments
How the socialists survive but capitalists struggle:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britain-stops-pretending-to-care-2012122154319
Luke,
Can you please outline what you think is WRONG with Judith Curry’s qualifications and experience?
Why do you think people need to be careful of this person?
Lots of people whose authority you espound have had papers shredded as well. Was JC’s shredding more significant in some particular way?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
The same question applies to Bob Carter and Walter Starck and Ove Humlum (to name just a few) When I look up their qualifications and experience, they appear to be more than adequately qualified to comment on these matters?
Debbie, Luke’s over at Skat for Science counting the bombs:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-per-second-widget-raise-awareness-global-warming.html
Hi SD, that Hiroshima BS has been around for a long time; it is critiqued here:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/agw-lies-hiroshima-and-academics.html
Thanks cohers, good rebuttal. Skat science is all it is.
As Doug McNeall said to Cook, “Saying that you think the atomic bomb metaphor is appropriate makes you appear either naive or purposely manipulative.”
Cook cleverly thinks he is being “cognitively sticky” with this.
As in “it sticks like skat to a blanket”.
Not much traffic at that SkS site. The thought bubbles from the PR ‘science communicators’ are becoming ever more ridiculous.
Yes Debbie, that’s all the “science” they’ve got left.
Just their imagination.
Using the Hiroshima metaphor for misrepresenting climate is alienating and insulting to many Japanese. The metaphor actually underscores the trivial nature of CO2 impacts on earth and marginalizes the kooks at SkS. So I hope the kooks rallying around Cook and Lewandwosky and the rest of the rent seeking extremists keep pushing that useless, insulting and deceptive app for a long, long time.
Debbie,
Dr. Curry’s crime is not agreeing with the alarmist extremists who have hijacked climate science.
It is not a matter of qualifications. It is a matter of character. She has it and they despise it.
Is “green crap” Cameron waking up?
A little bit more of the background that formed the mindless UK green policies:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/26/a-hilarious-view-of-climategate-ive-never-read-before/
I suspect that is the most likely answer Hunter.
I find it highly ironic that part of the mantra, that was on full display at the ‘climate change rallies’, is that people are ‘denying’ science and scientists yet the same people who loudly crow this ‘denier’ mantra will screech abuse at people who are. . .well. . . highly qualified scientists.
Luke has taken it even further recently and seems to be arguing that if ONE paper is ‘shredded’ (at a pro AGW blog site) or if someone has admitted to an error then that automatically follows they are no longer ‘credible’ and can be the object of ridicule.
Yet it’s somehow OK morally acceptable for Bandt et al use the term ‘climate criminal’ and apply it to a new PM re bushfires in NSW very soon after a change of Government?
I have to conclude as you have done, that the answer to my question doesn’t have much to do with ‘science’ at all.
And here is one of the latest MSM reports filed under ‘SCIENCE’ today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25099817
No you spare me the sarcasm Ian T – if your incredible opinionated value of the science is worthwhile write the VC and school Dean a letter precisely denouncing the value of the science and how it would be more credible if the participants had to suffer, possibly even lose a few might be more impressive. Will be fun to see if you can string a coherent sentence together or just another rant from an anti-science redneck whinger.
Cohenite don’t talk utter drivel – there are many examples of greenhouse warming in the paleo literature. I guess you have a coherent logically consistent view of how the earth rebounds from snowball earth states without greenhouse forcing too. So when your drongo sceptic mates have published something useful and coherent on the subject let us know.
Debbie please point out Bob Carter and Walter Starck’s climate papers in serious journals. That’s not whiney op-eds by the way – or stunts – some science. Here’s the big table Debs. http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
You’ve got to admire Hunter’s persistence – a pan-global blog twit who as far as I can remember never added an original comment about anything.
Till then on your bike.
Here’s a start for you Luke.
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
And compared to Cook at SkS whom you seem to think is some type of ‘authority’?
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/researchers/john-cook1
And Sou at Hotwhopper who you are recently linking as some type of ‘authority’?
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/about-us.html
It seems that Starck, Humlum and Carter have a better publishing record?
I also note you haven’t answered my original question about Judith Curry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Interesting suggestion that Wyatt and Curry’s ‘stadium wave’ paper has been shredded… As far as I can see after an admittedly quick Google, it’s only been seriously questioned on pro AGW blogs and not via any refutation in the literature as yet. I haven’t read in detail the blog refutations but the couple I did look at were pretty clear that they HADN’T read the paper or didn’t understand it.
Regardless, I think we’ll need to wait to see what the peer reviewed literature says in terms of whether the paper has a sound basis in physical reality.
Lastly, it is also interesting to see the same names cropping up again and again on the various Pro AGW blogs. It isn’t a big fanbase. No wonder WUWT is so far ahead in traffic terms.
Wonder how the major pro and sceptic blogs all compare in terms of traffic and unique commenters?
Another fine post from Bob Tisdale trying to get the pig ignorant to look at the evidence ( data) and not the discredited climate models.
We know the problems we have at this blog trying to engage with people who are wedded to bogus modelling. Everyone can see the inaccuracy of the models over the last 3 decades but these fools still persist.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/26/open-letter-to-lewis-black-and-george-clooney/
Here’s a reply from Bob to some fool who calls him a CC denier. Geeezzz how tedious, but I give Bob 10 out of 10 for decency and persistence. But it’s certainly a good reference for the Haiyan typhoon.
Bob Tisdale says:
November 26, 2013 at 7:00 am
MattN: Thanks for the link to Bill Chameides blog post at Duke:
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/super-typhoon-haiyan-redux/
I left two replies, but they’re awaiting moderation. First:
###
Bill Chameides writes in his blog post: “Climate change denier Bob Tisdale, perhaps in an effort to squelch any notion that global warming played a role in the storm, uses an epithet in a blog post to characterize any claims that unusually warm ocean temperatures were a contributing factor.
“Maybe so, but the data he cites only pertains to surface temperatures while the NOAA scientists point to high temperatures throughout the water column. In any event tropical cyclones are spawned in large part by warm ocean temperatures, so it would seem to me that Tisdale’s argument is moot.”
Bill, are you aware that the Typhoon Haiyan evolved over part of an area called the West Pacific Warm Pool. There’s a reason it has that name. The West Pacific Warm Pool has the some of the warmest waters on the planet because the trade winds push all of that lovely, sunlight-warmed tropical water from east to west across the tropical Pacific. So, logically, the “temperatures throughout the water column” are high there. Also, you failed to present a time-series graph to show whether the temperatures at altitude were unusually warm and if they showed even the remotest evidence of manmade global warming.
For the northwest tropical Pacific (0-20N, 120E-160E), UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies (1981 to 2010 base years) were basically zero:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/uah-tlt-nw-trop-pac-w-oct-2013-value.png
And the RSS-based data for the same area show a slightly positive anomaly of 0.03 deg C:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rss-tlt-nw-trop-pac-w-oct-2013-value.png
There’s nothing unusually warm about the temperatures of that part of the water column, Bill.
And both datasets show no warming since 1997, like much of the world. UAH:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/uah-tlt-nw-trop-pac-since-1997.png
And RSS:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rss-tlt-nw-trop-pac-since-1997.png
It’s tough to claim manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warming there when TLT anomalies haven’t warmed in 16 years.
Additionally, with respect to typhoon Haiyan, also see my follow-up post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/reality-is-absent-from-michael-manns-activist-article-on-typhoon-haiyan/
###
Second comment:
###
By the way, Bill, I present data. I don’t deny anything. I simply can find no evidence of manmade global warming in the NODC’s ocean heat content data (0-700 meters) from 1955 to present, or in satellite-era sea surface temperatures. See “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
Regards
Terry McCrann exposes the nonsense at the latest climate conference. Will this insanity never end?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_climate_of_insane_spending_on_nothing/#commentsmore
Hi luke, Snowball Earth deglaciation doesn’t require CO2; even Pierrehumbert thinks so:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/JGRSnowballProof.pdf
Perhaps even the Poms are starting to wakey wakey just a little bit.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/there-goes-a-massive-windfarm-4bn-uk-project-kaput-before-it-began/#more-31944
Pathetic laughable attempt Debs – hopeless – they don’t have ANY !
I see Neville is still drug pushing ” errors so great and no idea on stats Tisdale” You clown. Who can be bothered with silly persons. Tisdale is an unpublished blog irrelevance. Without an forum on Wattscrook he’d be unknown and so much the better.
Graeme M – well talking shit and bashing the system is easier than doing any real science isn’t it. Explains talk back radio – simply porn for the masses.
Stadium wave http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/10/16/role-for-eurasian-arctic-shelf-sea-ice-in-a-secularly-varying-hemispheric-climate-signal-during-the-20th-century/
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/10/17/wyatt-and-curry-part-ii-not-waving-but-drowning/
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-bunnies-ask-do-zombies-wanting-to.html
Cohenite has redeemed himself – hat tip – but explain the contents.
Luke Tisdale uses data provided by reputable sources and funds himself through sales of his e books etc.
Does he occasionally make mistakes? Yes but he very quickly fixes any problems and actually shows where the fault occured.
He’s a 100% genuine bloke trying his best to throw light on dubious climate models and the fraudsters and con merchants who bludge off the public purse.
Like so called scientists who boast about using tricks to fool the public and who actually use data upside down to try and further their con games. Like your hero HS Mann for instance, what a nong.
We know you believe all of their rubbish but hey that’s your problem not ours.
Here’s another good post from the Bolter showing increased death toll from recent colder temps in the UK.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cold_kills_warming_would_save/#commentsmore
“explain the contents.”
That’s funny. Ice->no clouds->sun hot->evaporation->clouds->sun blocked->ice.
Now explain this:
(A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4 and why it shows C&W are irrelevant.
A very good video on SLR from WUWT. Some very good comments from the bloggers. A good comment from Spangled as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/26/a-bunch-of-stuff-ill-bet-you-never-knew-about-sea-level/#more-98174
New paper shows few problems from Greenland ice sheet melting.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1315843110#
More here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~abbot/PAPERS/abbot-pierrehumbert-10.pdf
and here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~abbot/PAPERS/abbot-et-al-12b.pdf
These are updates which also back up Cohenite’s simple explanation above re the earth developing from a locked up snowball.
CO2 would need to get over at least 10,000ppm before it would have had any significant part to play.
Luke,
My original question was about the CREDIBILITY of the QUALIFICATIONS of people like Curry, Humlum, Starck and Carter.
When people have CHOSEN to remain in ACADEMIA, then PUBLISHING is an important part of their JOB DESCRIPTION. The number of PUBLICATIONS and CITES is an ACADEMIC measurement and is often reliant on TAX PAYER FUNDED research which means it is PUBLIC PROPERTY and needs to be accessible to THE PUBLIC.
The question was about and remains about the PESONAL CREDIBILITY of the PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS and the PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of people like Judith Curry.
You are answering a completely different question.
Neville – Tisdale is an irrelevance and more likely wrong. No more time wsting.
Debs – no you just added Curry. The others don’t have any climate science quals. Now this not deter them from advancing any argument they wish but let’s not pretend otherwise eh? Otherwise I may take up neurosurgery.
Debs – yes as you’d expect from chumps Cohers does advance simple explanations form complex problems. Given your sudden interest in matters paleo – why don’t you toddle off and find out about how GHG forcing has had major roles in previous Earth warming. Get edumuckated for a change.
And dear Debs – why you should do some reading and stop baking lammies.
“In this work we have hypothesized that the Snowball
hydrological cycle would likely drive glacial flow in such a
way that over the lifetime of the Snowball a dust layer
composed of volcanic and continental dust would develop
at the surface in the tropics that would significantly lower
the tropical albedo and enable Snowball deglaciation, which
has heretofore been difficult to produce in global climate
models, for pCO2 = 0.01 –0.1 bar”
ahem ! (helps if you do read it – Abbott too !) suckers
“Get edumuckated for a change.”
Good idea:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20co220from20epica20domec1.gif
More edumakation for Luke:
“Even on a time scale of a century, CO2 trends do not correlate with temperature well. What about very “long” timescales in geological terms? Back in 2001, a study of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years (Rothman, MIT) remarked:
“Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly [to a strontium-isotope record] on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.”
On those extreme long time scales, atmospheric CO2 levels are driven largely by geological processes other than the temperature-dependent release of CO2 from the ocean predominant on “medium” time scales. Accordingly there is lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature. The prior study also noted apparent long-period climate fluctuations, of around 135 million years, existing from some cause, with cycling between warm and cool modes several times over the past 600 million years.
Others have guessed that cause. In the words of Dr. Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists:
“In the last half billion years, earth has lost, four times, its polar caps: no ice at the North Pole and none at the South Pole. And, four times, the polar caps were reconstituted. Man did not exist then, only the so-called cosmic rays, discovered by mankind in the early twentieth century. The last cosmic ice age started 50 million years ago when we entered into one of the galaxy arms.”
Hi Luke,
” how it would be more credible if the participants had to suffer, possibly even lose a few might be more impressive. ”
Do I take that comment as a backdoor admission, that you agree the 60 of them are off down on a backslapping Antarctic tour for true believers.
Anti science ? Not me , you and they are.
They have already announced the results and are off to make the evidence fit.
Ummm Luke?
What do you think this means?
pCO2 = 0.01 –0.1 bar”
And PS.
My first question was about Judith Curry. . . maybe you need to check?
“What do you think this means?
pCO2 = 0.01 –0.1 bar”
It means its luke’s shout at the pub.
Debbie 0.01-0.1 bar is about really small metal bars of palladium.
Ian – yep “tours” of Antarctica are pretty fun. You’ve got ya penguin feeding, sea lion chasing, core digging, crevasse falling, all day or all night modes, the beach … cruisin’ around in skidoos, dropping hackies, checking out the penguins, frostbite. Weeks and weeks and weeks of it. Heapsa fun.
SD – fancy being desperate enough to spend time trawling trash sites like Wattspoop to quote unqualified deniers. Try some real science http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
On your beloved ice core graph. Total fabrication. It’s actually http://i2.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png
So don’t come round here waving your dead rats pls.
Unsurprisingly, Luke shoots any messenger who disagrees with his model-fed assumptions and assumption-fed models that can eliminate any facts that get in the way of true religion.
And you’d love to believe that GISP2 graph of yours.
Well I’ve got news for you Luke. Not even Michael Mann would believe that.
Claiming that we are now at by far the warmest point in the Holocene.
That’s desperate stuff. Claiming we have warmed 4c since the 1850s when we haven’t warmed even 1c.
But even if it was right, the CO2/temp correlation is still wrong.
You’re an idiot – you’d wouldn’t expect CO2/temp correlation in ice core data. Are you mental? Tell me what my assumption would be to expect that? So there we would be in a quiescent glaciated state and a bunch of CO2 molecules would say “hey I’m bored – let’s start radiating and thaw the planet” ! Is that what you actually think? You haven’t applied a scintilla of brains to the problem. Honestly – try thinking about it ! Glaciations from Milankovitch type mechanisms thaw because solar insolation starts to change.
The whole ice core temp/CO2 thing is a threshold stupidity test for deniers.
GISP – this is more fascinating into the non-working of your pea-brain and shows your MASSIVE stupidity “Claiming that we are now at by far the warmest point in the Holocene.”
You are a fool – the site is where GISP cores are taken. That’s the current site temperatures. It’s not the world mate – which is what you believe. The Arctic is warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet.
Your mind is a mish mash of rubbish. Filled with denier porn. People who are lying their arse off to you? You might ask why?
Like Neville you are simply an uncritical parrot who promulgates utter bunk. Ctrl-C Ctrl-V – no care “Hey Mum I read it on the internetz …”
http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!
Spangled don’t believe a thing Luke tells you about Greenland temps. Here is a summary of the Vinther, Jones and Briffa study of Greenland temps for the last 1400 years.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/apr/21apr2010a2.html I don’t know where he got his graph from but it is bogus and a con.
I’m busy today but I’ll try and find a copy of the above study and post it here. BTW I’ve gone over this with Luke before but he still thinks that the Holocene optimum was cooler than today. So you can see he is a hopeless case.
Spangled here’s that Vinther , Jones, Briffa study.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
Plenty of graphs and table 8 is very informative. Luke’s stuff is nonsense.
Very funny Luke re palladium.
But just so we’re clear, the progression through those Abbot et al papers points out that modelled deglaciation requires AT LEAST 10,000ppm CO2 in the presence of a dust layer in order to occur.
In fact it’s a range of 10,000ppm to 100,000ppm which is what that little equation you so gleefully quoted as some type of amazing refutation of my comment was referring to.
Without the dust layer CO2 concentrations of about 200,000ppm would be required.
In all cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.
Given that current levels are approx. 400ppm I don’t think these paleo studies are much help to the alarmist meme?
So Cohenite’s comment and mine was entirely valid re these particular paleo studies
From page 5 Abbot et al :
Snowball by the mechanisms discussed in section 2. It seems highly probably (e) that 1–10 m of dust would have a significant effect on the surface albedo and potentially other important processes such as evaporation
Instead of going all rabid on us Luke, just answer the simple question:
Do you really believe the world has warmed, as per that graph you keep feeding us, 4c since the 1850s?
Let’s face it, you’ve fed it to us twice in your last 3 comments so it is a very specific question.
Yes or NO?
But if you are claiming “That’s the current site temperatures” and it has nothing to do with the graph, then why do you put up the graph?
Easterbrook is obviously a lot more honest.
But to get back to your correlation claim, one of the favourite chants of you religious warmers is that existing CO2 in the atmo will continue to warm for centuries even if we stop emitting.
That alone
so apparently we can have more CO2 or less CO2 but we will always have more warming:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories
Neville, thanks for that.
That paper by Luke’s warmer mates in table 8 says that the Greenland annual temps in 1851-60 are exactly the same as 1991-2000.
That confirms, what I suspected, that Luke’s rebuttal of Easterbrook is just a crock !!
SD, that Princeton study is flawed. It is now becoming apparent that the IPCC’s notion of CO2 residency and the distinction between transient sensitivity and equilibrium sensitivity with the effect of CO2 lasting for centuries is nonsense; see Gösta Pettersson’s work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
What is relevant from Pettersson’s work is that the measurement of the adjustment or residence time constants for a small perturbation gives you the values for any size perturbation. The measurement of the C14 residue from the bomb testing allows legitimate extrapolation to all CO2; and Pettersson’s work shows the residency time for CO2 is MUCH less than assumed by the IPCC’s Bern model.
Thanks cohers, I suspected that. It’s the sort of science that Luke would push down your throat so I thought I would use it for his “enlightenment”☺.
Steve McIntyre is after fresh bristlecone junk from the junkies. Plus more upside down garbage used AGAIN as well.
Geeezzzz these blokes just love BS , corruption and fraud. Little wonder that Luke thinks they are top scientists. Right up there alongside Mann the prince of con merchants.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/28/bristlecone-addiction-in-shi-et-al-2013/#more-18641
Robert Way ( of C&W) gives a weak as water comment at no 2. Just amazing how stupid these dingalings are, but hey I suppose they are the gift that keeps on giving. More from Steve tomorrow.
SD digs in and is back to extrapolating to the world. And now he’s blurring with annual temps for for the whole of Greenland. Why put the graph? WTF – it’s your graph base numb nuts. Give up you drongo. You’re pathetic and so is your denial. Your attack has been shredded. Get out of your burning vehicle and report to the concentration camp for climate crims.
Debs misses the point. Gee Debs it was only a snowball Earth. Might have needed a bit of a nudge? That’s analogous to today isn’t. Reaches for lammie recipe.
Top scientists for Neville “my mistakes so many and so great” “limited knowledge of stats”
Neville the fraudulent climate crim.
As weak as water Luke, a good match for Way. The Greenland temps cooled for at least 60 years from 1930 until 1990s.
Also warmest decades 1930s and 1940s and warmest year 1941. And not a great deal of difference 1851 to 1860 compared to 1991 to 2000. Probably best explained by the NAO.
Also your so called scientists are a joke, they literally don’t know which way is up. Do you ? But Steve hasn’t finished with these con merchants yet.
I repeat , we all owe a debt of gratitude to Tisdale for his weekly postings and graphs, books etc. He has strived to be accurate at all times but he’s not a genius. If you’re posting on a weekly basis you will make mistakes, but he has always admitted any errors and fixed them pronto.
Just a pity the con merchants on your side didn’t follow Tisdale’s example.
Here is Way’s explanation to Steve and Steve’s reply. Also funny reponse by Don Monfort.
Robert Way
Posted Nov 29, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Permalink | Reply
I should clarify that I simply repeated what was listed as criterion in the paper – I did not check to ensure the authors initial interpretations regarding temperature signal were retained (rightly or wrongly). During my read I was more interested in examining the differences between the reconstruction methodologies (EIV, CPS, PCA).
Steve: Robert, specialists in this field have placed far too much importance on complicated multivariate methods, in part, I suspect, because they tend to be outdoorsy, rather than mathematical, and do not have intuitive understanding of the underlying linear algebra, a topic that I’ve written on from time to time. If there is a consistent “signal” in the data, it emerges with simple weighted-averaging methods. More complicated methods run the risk of heavily weighting some series, flipping others. People who use “complicated” methods also tend to pay less attention to defects in the data e.g. Tingley and Huybers’ ludicrous inclusion of the contaminated portion of the Tiljander data, long after it was known to be contaminated. The larger issue here is more the continued passing-off of Graybill bristlecone data used in Mann et al 1998-99 as well as Mann et al 2008 in a supposedly “independent” study, as much as the (almost certain) incorrectness of their assertions of having carried out significance tests on local temperature.
Don Monfort
Posted Nov 29, 2013 at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Reply
Way:”I should clarify that I simply repeated what was listed as criterion in the paper – I did not check to ensure the authors initial interpretations regarding temperature signal were retained (rightly or wrongly).”
Don’t feel bad, Robert. The reviewers didn’t check either.
The comments in the CA dissection are amusing too:
Fred
Posted Nov 29, 2013 at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Reply
“Wrong in both directions. How do they manage that so often?”
It is a specialized area of paleo science called “Concurrent Suck & Blow”
CA is still the benchmark for analysis of AGW pseudo-science; that would make luke the skid-mark I guess.
Roy Spencer may have been correct, cloud variation could be the difference making the planet a little warmer.
Problem is do models allow enough for this increase or decrease in cloud cover over time?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/29/study-lack-of-cloud-physics-biased-climate-models-high/#more-98343
Luke,
Which/what point are you claiming I have missed?
I was referring to the quote you posted from the Abbot et al research.
I only outlined the range of required CO2 ppm (depending on dust or clay drapes it’s 10,000 to 200,000ppm according to this research) and quoted the current CO2 ppm.
I also copy/pasted ONE(!) of the sections from these papers that validated Cohenite’s comment re the water cycle.
I can’t find where anyone claimed there WASN’T a snowball earth?
Neither has anyone argued there wasn’t SOMETHING or a combination of SOMETHINGS that created thawing.
But please do point out the missed point that you apparently made.
BTW, I laughed again when I re- read your palladium comment. Very funny.
More man-made global warming:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/screenhunter_190-dec-01-05-16.jpg
Richard Lindzen puts the boot into the barking mad CAGW religious cult.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warming_religion_will_collapse_from_its_sheer_cost/
Just think where we could be if just a fraction of those wasted billions were directed to more R&D research into new nukes.
Looks like we’ll have to shut Debs down as a planet survival hazard.
The ultimate stocking stuffer to stop your uncle Nev or SD being a serial whinger at the kiddies Xmas. The old codgers will probably try to stop you being carbon neutral kids but don’t listen to them. Just get them back to the nursing home quick after Xmas lunch.
The new tour de force from that guru of the Anthropocene – William Ruddiman. Rebut this Gramps and until then STFU.
http://www.whfreeman.com/Catalog/product/earthtransformed-ruddiman/tableofcontents
How rice culture warmed the planet !
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html Looks like climate crims (then foresters) have a lot to answer for !
Robby will get off on it as it will be anecdote heaven albeit without kayaks but with quality citations.
Lindzen joins the “climate science is a Lysenko plot” and “climate scientists are eugenicists” nutters. And where would it come from – Bolters’s cess pit of recycled denial. I guess it could be treatable.
Could have added Pol Pot and Hitler though. Anyway it’s all just for the party faithful isn’t it. Gets uncle Nev REALLY WORKED up till morning tea is served at the home.
I see that the reforestation-after-depopulation theory is having another run, concurrent with a desperate bid to bring back the hockey stick in its original straight-handled glory (but with a few more warps and bumps for that delicious “natural” effect). As Luke said to his best buddies, Tristan, Tristan, Tristan and Tarquin…let’s party like it’s 1998!
Have we in fact crossed a line as a species? Is it the first time in human history that the tertiary educated are dumber than everybody else?
Codgerian science “err I thunk dat’s wong – where’s my kayak”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68GeL8PafE
The boys visit the doctor.
Another good article on natural SLR and SL fall over many hundreds and indeed thousands of years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/#more-98420
I still say Luke’s buddies would be less concerned with warming if they stopped wearing scarves in mid-summer.
When will these moronic fools ever learn? Or how to waste 7 trillion that will return zip on the investment????? A five year old would be able to understand the sums. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/11/climate_change_the_eu_wants_to_spend_7_trillion_on_projects_that_will_barely.html
Probably one of Lomborg’s best posts on this barking mad cult. All the money wasted is listed and the returns???? are calculated as well.
This quote from David Deming before a US senate committee is an oldie but a goody.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/if-you-like-your-medieval-warm-period-you-can-keep-your-medieval-warm-period/
A reporter refused to interview him unless he blamed CAGW for recent warming and a senior researcher stated ” we have to get rid of the MWP.”
A very inconvenient graph that IPCC 1990 temp graph is it not Neville!? No wonder they had to remove it. I mean you’d have to have your head in the sand to believe in CAGW after a graph like that wouldn’t you?….hardly a surprise that it has morphed into something entirely different.
so 17 years and no warming but its still worse than we thought, now who would have thought…….
Robert, thx a priceless comment! “Have we in fact crossed a line as a species? Is it the first time in human history that the tertiary educated are dumber than everybody else?”
yes if they have studied a pseudo science!
More of the most absurd delusional nonsense and scary stuff from their ABC.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm
Seems they think we could have a 4c warmer world by 2070. If not, then it’s a certainty by 2100. But OZ can fix it if we just increase our co2 reductions by a factor of 9 times. Or from 5% to 45%.
So we know that our 5% reduction of co2 by 2020 will change the climate and temp by ZIP, but it’s a pity that these fools don’t understand that a further 40% reduction would make ZIP difference as well. Unbelievable rubbish.
Privatise the crusaders I say, they are a disgrace to journalism. They never withdraw any catastrophic predictions even when the papers are completely shredded and any attempt at balance is foregone in search of their causes.
And they don’t even fulfil their charter anymore!!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/your-abc-the-public-broadcaster-thats-lost-its-sense-of-purpose/story-fnhulhjj-1226773717549
ABORIGINAL and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that the ABC’s latest annual report contains material that may cause offence.
On page 231, for instance, we learn that ABC1 broadcast, between 6am and midnight, six hours of indigenous television. That is six hours for the entire year, or six minutes and 55 seconds a week, and two minutes and 18 seconds of that was repeats.
Indigenous issues may be covered incidentally in categories such as drama, sport or current affairs, but since indigenous programming is listed as a genre in its own right, the lack of commitment in this area reflects the ABC’s confusion about its public purpose.
The annual report makes a great deal of the corporation’s new Indigenous Employment Strategy. It boasts that there are 70 indigenous staff members, which means there are just 38 to find to complete the 2 per cent quota.
It could of course meet the target by sacking a couple of thousand non-indigenous employees, which in many ways sounds preferable, starting perhaps with the head of indigenous content who appears to have little to do.
Alternatively, they could reduce the entire staff to 50 and employ Stan Grant, who in any given week produces 25 minutes more indigenous television than ABC1.
Grant’s weekly show, Awaken, is broadcast by National Indigenous Television, a network that does more than merely tick the box.
It actually puts indigenous Australians on the box, just as the ABC would if it was fulfilling its statutory obligation to “reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community”.
The ABC’s charter runs to a mere 500 words but, even so, the corporation has enormous trouble sticking to it.
The ABC is required “to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts” yet its flagship television service broadcasts less than one and a quarter hours of first-run Australian arts and culture a week.
It is expected to “contribute to a sense of national identity”, yet the number of Australian programs on ABC1 is pitiful.
In an average hour of prime time viewing last year, 32 minutes and 15 seconds was imported material and two-thirds of that had been broadcast before.
There were 22 minutes and 22 seconds of first-run Australian television but 14 minutes of it was news and current affairs.
A typical hour contained two minutes and 16 seconds of Australian arts and culture; six minutes and 15 seconds of documentaries and factual programs; two minutes and 12 seconds of Australian drama; three minutes and 15 seconds of entertainment and 28 seconds of religion and ethics. Oh, and four and a half seconds of indigenous programming.
The ABC will tell you it is a question of money, yet in 1998, with a smaller budget and 500 fewer staff, ABC TV broadcast 10 per cent more Australian content and fewer repeats.
On ABC’s Canadian equivalent, CBC, 82 per cent of programs were locally produced last year, and yet Canada spends less on public broadcasting per head of population than we do.
Not surprisingly, ABC audiences have fallen over the past 15 years.
In 1998, ABC TV’s weekly reach was more than 70 per cent; today ABC1’s weekly reach is less than 45 per cent.
The ABC’s excuse is that there is more competition. Another way of looking at it is that many of the television services we once relied on the ABC to provide are now provided by the private sector.
With the proliferation of media, public sector broadcasters around the world are struggling to define their public purpose.
When airtime was scarce, it seemed reasonable for governments to ration it. State-funded broadcasters were there to ensure the public interest was served.
In an era of media abundance, however, it is less clear what public broadcasters are supposed to do.
The debate is particularly lively in Britain where the BBC’s Royal Charter is up for renewal in 2016, and public faith in the corporation is wavering.
British viewers are obliged to pay a licence fee each year – currently Pound145.50 or $260 – and naturally they are keen to get value for money.
Yet the BBC is no longer the dominant broadcaster. Subscriptions paid to the private-sector BSkyB network now exceed the BBC’s entire budget. Naturally, many viewers are asking why they are paying twice.
The BBC still produces some remarkably good television, much of it starring Stephen Fry, which the ABC buys to pad out its schedule.
Not for much longer, however. The BBC has recently decided to cut out the middleman and sell its programs direct to subscribers in Australia through its iPlayer app.
The ABC, the principal re-broadcaster of BBC programs, is in trouble. It is not after all immune from the structural challenges faced by the rest of the media industry.
The case for a major review of public broadcasting is overwhelming and it will be surprising if the Abbott government does not announce one in its first term.
It is abundantly clear that the ABC lacks a clear sense of public purpose. Its decision to become a player in the Edward Snowden intelligence leak scandal rather than merely report an unfolding story demonstrates its internal confusion.
Since the ABC appears intent on making the case for its own abolition, the government must save it from itself.
Ultimately, it must strengthen the ABC’s charter to remove any ambiguity about what the broadcaster is supposed to do.
The BBC’s charter runs to 29 pages. It begins: “The BBC exists to serve the public interest.”
It stipulates that the BBC’s main activity “should be the promotion of its Public Purposes”.
The BBC’s Public Purposes include “sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities”.
Those who drafted the ABC’s charter must have assumed that these things were too obvious to spell out.
Apparently they are not. At the very least, parliament should amend section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to ensure that they are. Foreign shows such as some of those from the BBC will soon not be available anyway…so there goes another reason for the ABC ‘s existence.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/your-abc-the-public-broadcaster-thats-lost-its-sense-of-purpose/story-fnhulhjj-1226773717549#sthash.iRj83sMK.dpuf
“ABORIGINAL and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that the ABC’s latest annual report contains material that may cause offence.
On page 231, for instance, we learn that ABC1 broadcast, between 6am and midnight, six hours of indigenous television. That is six hours for the entire year, or six minutes and 55 seconds a week, and two minutes and 18 seconds of that was repeats.
Indigenous issues may be covered incidentally in categories such as drama, sport or current affairs, but since indigenous programming is listed as a genre in its own right, the lack of commitment in this area reflects the ABC’s confusion about its public purpose.
The annual report makes a great deal of the corporation’s new Indigenous Employment Strategy. It boasts that there are 70 indigenous staff members, which means there are just 38 to find to complete the 2 per cent quota.
It could of course meet the target by sacking a couple of thousand non-indigenous employees, which in many ways sounds preferable, starting perhaps with the head of indigenous content who appears to have little to do.
Alternatively, they could reduce the entire staff to 50 and employ Stan Grant, who in any given week produces 25 minutes more indigenous television than ABC1.
Grant’s weekly show, Awaken, is broadcast by National Indigenous Television, a network that does more than merely tick the box.
It actually puts indigenous Australians on the box, just as the ABC would if it was fulfilling its statutory obligation to “reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community”.
The ABC’s charter runs to a mere 500 words but, even so, the corporation has enormous trouble sticking to it.
The ABC is required “to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts” yet its flagship television service broadcasts less than one and a quarter hours of first-run Australian arts and culture a week.
It is expected to “contribute to a sense of national identity”, yet the number of Australian programs on ABC1 is pitiful.
In an average hour of prime time viewing last year, 32 minutes and 15 seconds was imported material and two-thirds of that had been broadcast before.
There were 22 minutes and 22 seconds of first-run Australian television but 14 minutes of it was news and current affairs.
A typical hour contained two minutes and 16 seconds of Australian arts and culture; six minutes and 15 seconds of documentaries and factual programs; two minutes and 12 seconds of Australian drama; three minutes and 15 seconds of entertainment and 28 seconds of religion and ethics. Oh, and four and a half seconds of indigenous programming.
The ABC will tell you it is a question of money, yet in 1998, with a smaller budget and 500 fewer staff, ABC TV broadcast 10 per cent more Australian content and fewer repeats.
On ABC’s Canadian equivalent, CBC, 82 per cent of programs were locally produced last year, and yet Canada spends less on public broadcasting per head of population than we do.
Not surprisingly, ABC audiences have fallen over the past 15 years.
In 1998, ABC TV’s weekly reach was more than 70 per cent; today ABC1’s weekly reach is less than 45 per cent.
The ABC’s excuse is that there is more competition. Another way of looking at it is that many of the television services we once relied on the ABC to provide are now provided by the private sector.
With the proliferation of media, public sector broadcasters around the world are struggling to define their public purpose.
When airtime was scarce, it seemed reasonable for governments to ration it. State-funded broadcasters were there to ensure the public interest was served.
In an era of media abundance, however, it is less clear what public broadcasters are supposed to do.
The debate is particularly lively in Britain where the BBC’s Royal Charter is up for renewal in 2016, and public faith in the corporation is wavering.
British viewers are obliged to pay a licence fee each year – currently Pound145.50 or $260 – and naturally they are keen to get value for money.
Yet the BBC is no longer the dominant broadcaster. Subscriptions paid to the private-sector BSkyB network now exceed the BBC’s entire budget. Naturally, many viewers are asking why they are paying twice.
The BBC still produces some remarkably good television, much of it starring Stephen Fry, which the ABC buys to pad out its schedule.
Not for much longer, however. The BBC has recently decided to cut out the middleman and sell its programs direct to subscribers in Australia through its iPlayer app.
The ABC, the principal re-broadcaster of BBC programs, is in trouble. It is not after all immune from the structural challenges faced by the rest of the media industry.
The case for a major review of public broadcasting is overwhelming and it will be surprising if the Abbott government does not announce one in its first term.
It is abundantly clear that the ABC lacks a clear sense of public purpose. Its decision to become a player in the Edward Snowden intelligence leak scandal rather than merely report an unfolding story demonstrates its internal confusion.
Since the ABC appears intent on making the case for its own abolition, the government must save it from itself.
Ultimately, it must strengthen the ABC’s charter to remove any ambiguity about what the broadcaster is supposed to do.
The BBC’s charter runs to 29 pages. It begins: “The BBC exists to serve the public interest.”
It stipulates that the BBC’s main activity “should be the promotion of its Public Purposes”.
The BBC’s Public Purposes include “sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities”.
Those who drafted the ABC’s charter must have assumed that these things were too obvious to spell out.
Apparently they are not. At the very least, parliament should amend section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to ensure that they are.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/your-abc-the-public-broadcaster-thats-lost-its-sense-of-purpose/story-fnhulhjj-1226773717549#sthash.iRj83sMK.dpuf
Aussie kids have slipped further behind the rest of the world although we have splashed heaps of extra cash on education since the Rudd/Gillard donkey govts came to power.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/we_added_billions_and_students_went_backwards_so_mere_cash_is_not_what_scho/
In fact the disadvantaged students in poor countries are excelling, while our most advantaged students in the wealthiest schools have gone backwards.
The Gonski rubbish is a clueless waste of time and money. We need better teachers and methods plus a much more sensible curriculum.
There have been many lower temp records broken in the USA. Plus snowfall records as well and could be more to come.
If this was USA summer temp records or drought their ABC and Fairfax etc would be endlessly yapping every day about more CAGW influence and proof that we need a higher co2 tax.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/more-than-1000-cold-snowy-records-set-in-us-one-small-media-outlet-covers-it/#more-32064
More fraud, corruption and con games from within the IPCC. These fools can’t even abide by their own rules.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/03/wg1-co-chair-thomas-stocker-abandons-ipcc-principles/#more-98484
Amazingly their ABC calls the traitor Snowden a whistleblower but the person who released the climategate emails is branded a hacker.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_called_climategate_whisteblower_a_hacker_so_why_doesnt_it_call_snowden_/#commentsmore
Robyn “100 metres Williams” put his 2 bobs worth in as well. But be should be grateful for the facts in those emails revealing all the corruption and fraud within a small group of suspect scientists.
The ABC – our most trusted institution!
Extracted bits from the Monthly, May 2005, Margaret Simmons , the ABC having survived the attacks of the Howard years.
……….The working day is infused with the irony of the clever, their undercutting humour, and the slight sense of disappointment that always accompanies passion. Public broadcasting, a former ABC executive comments, is a thing built on intellect and emotion. This makes it precious, but hard to manage. The people are easy to love, but they can drive you mad.
The offices of the ABC are factories in which ideas and words are hammered out, industrial spaces for people who work with their minds. There are dozens of them all over Australia. They are utilitarian, often grey or blue-grey, with glancing stabs at beauty. A quirky postcard. An enamelled brooch pinned to a grey jumper filled with holes. “My thinking jumper,” its owner says. A dead pot-plant. Another one in flower. The workers are usually cramped, their desks covered in a thick fall of books. Guest couches are squeezed up against recycling bins with open maws, ready to take the reams of paper – read, written on, crumpled and thrown.
In an ABC regional radio station far to the west of the Great Dividing Range, the staff pinboard has a notice: “Duck when they say that regional radio will be the last to go.” In Sydney, the passages leading to the offices of The 7.30 Report are painted a deep purple. “I don’t know why,” says host Kerry O’Brien, and I remark that it is at least a very balanced colour – the mid-point between red and blue. He laughs his rich flirty laugh. On the walls of his office are maps of the Middle East, so he can pick out the battlefields. Above them are several years’ worth of Christmas cards from the former communications minister, Senator Richard Alston, and the prime minister, John Howard. Apparently O’Brien has not yet been crossed off the list. In Melbourne, the director of radio, Sue Howard, has a cartoon on her office wall. It shows a cage with the bars shattered and two people standing dismayed at the door. One says: “Oh Lord. The Right Wing Phillip Adams has escaped.”
…………Distrust between ABC management and staff is not new. Nine years ago, when the former Fairfax chief executive Bob Mansfield was brought in by the newly elected Howard government (sorry, federal government) to review the ABC, he reported that he was “very conscious” of a management–staff divide and a “lack of trust”. He also said managers needed to take more responsibilty for managing, rather than being at the behest of their staff. Some of this seems to have happened; ABC people will tell you it is a less consultative place than before, but that the distrust is worse than ever. Right or wrong, many think they will be punished if they question their bosses or step out of line. “The place has gone timid,” says one. Michael Duffy, an ABC critic who now has his own weekly Radio National program called Counterpoint, fears the ABC has “had the vigour squashed out of it … it is like a whipped dog. When you manage the ABC you are in the business of managing passion. Now there is a lot less passion to manage.”
During the month I spent stooging around the atriums and back offices, two questions recurred in my interviews.
One was: “What are you afraid of?”
The other was: “Who is leading the ABC?”
Kerry O’Brien says that after years of building up quality through the 1980s, “my fear is that we might edge back to the time when mediocrity ruled a long time ago. Mediocrity feeds off itself.” He says the greatest threat is “a compromised process at the heart”. By this he means the way the ABC board is appointed by the federal government of the day and has been stacked by successive governments. “If you believe in the need for a strong, genuinely independent public broadcaster of integrity then a fundamental part of that process has to be the integrity of the appointment of the board. It has to be free of political influence and seen to be free of political influence. If you just analyse the people who have been appointed, without reflecting on the character of individuals, it does go to a lack of integrity in the appointing process.”
Like many others, O’Brien fears the impact of constant compromise due to lack of resources. The 7.30 Report has lost a third of its editorial staff since it went national nine years ago. “You might shy away from a particular story because you know you simply won’t be able to do it justice,” he says. “There have been times when we have had to be very, very selective on overseas satellite crosses, and at times almost ban them. There have been times when our travel has almost come to a standstill. You are cutting corners all the time. Those things aren’t automatically clear in what is going to air, but you have to worry over time about a decline in quality. I am still confident that the compromises we make are acceptable in the circumstances. We have a strong team here now, perhaps the best we have ever had, but I guess one of the realities of life at the ABC is you can’t feel secure about that continuing.”
Meanwhile the director of television, Sandra Levy, says she fears the day is near when it will be close to impossible to commission Australian drama for the national broadcaster. “I think the future for ABC television is very bleak.”
There are two ways of telling the story of the ABC at the beginning of the 21st century. One is a success story, a story of excellence, resilience and hope. The other is about what happens to a cultural institution, and perhaps also to a society, subjected to constant change, pressure, criticism and lack of sustenance. This second story is about wearing things down, about people withdrawing and pulling down the blinds, about feeling threatened and desiring protection.
The ABC has never been more loved. The corporation’s own surveys say nine in ten Australians believe it provides a valuable service. The Australian National University’s 2003 survey of social attitudes shows 66% of Australians have confidence in the ABC. That might not sound so stunning, until you compare it with other institutions. Only 40% have confidence in the government, 31% in the public service, 33% in churches and religious institutions.
The ABC has the best current affairs and news service in the country.
Vomitous bazza;
“The working day is infused with the irony of the clever, their undercutting humour, and the slight sense of disappointment that always accompanies passion. Public broadcasting, a former ABC executive comments, is a thing built on intellect and emotion.”
“The irony of the clever”.
Let’s see some that there irony. Step up Ms Trioli and show the mindset of the abc staff:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/loopy-virginia-trioli-doesny-know-who.html
More delusional silly nonsense from bazza. If you believe that garbage bazza you really have got problems.
But thankfully we’re not as stupid as you are. But leave it to the Bolter to present the real factual info, line by line.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abc_betrayed_conservative_australians_and_now_must_pay/
Their ABC should have a new charter that states that there MUST be as many conservative staff and commentary as the present radical leftwing layabouts.
I’ve paid tax all my life and their ABC should be changed to represent my views as well , not just the leftwing pseudo sci-fi drivel they currently spew forth.
Most Australians do not watch the ABC, some of their shows are excellent…but their political bias is blatant and those unable to see that should ask themselves how they would feel if the ABC was right wing………. their current affair and opinion shows rarely try for balance. They are crowding out the private sector and they have reached a point where many (admittedly right wing/ conservative in general…although maybe we can throw in libertarian as well!?) are incredibly angry with what they are seeing. Any fair person would have to acknowledge there should be some attempt at balance? …wouldn’t they?!
The bbc shows of quality will apparently no longer be sold to the ABC, but will be available through on line subscription….another good reason to privatise.
Who in their right mind could think their Chairman should be paid more than the Prime minister?!…it is after all our money they are spending…..and the other highly paid staff are being paid out of our pockets…..do they seriously provide such an important “public service” that they should be paid more than doctors, nurses, politicians etc??? And if so let them work in the private sector.
Hi Jennifer, here’s me thread re response to Kuhn’s paradigm, criticizing the post modern
view of science as an irrational process of paradigm overthrow versus evolution of
theories. and , tentative, growth of knowledge. I’d argue that plodding ‘normal’
science can’t lead to growth of knowledge it’s irrational gestalt switch overthrow
cannot either. Incommensurable and one not more explanatory in relation to
the one it replaces.
I consider incommensurability has been refuted and there is corroboration
re evolution of knowledge eg from Ptolemy>Copernicus>Kepler>Newton>
Einstein and advances in technology arising from the evolution of theories
indicates this. I may be wrong (
Beth the serf.
http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/10th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/