“ONE of the best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting.” So wrote Eric Berger in a blog post in which he lists, what he considers, the top 10 most spectacularly wrong once widely held scientific theories.
His list included:
The stress theory of ulcers;
Immovable continents;
Phlogiston; and
Miasmatic theory of disease.
I’m wondering how long on average these theories existed before they were falsified and how many sceptical scientists were censured before their eventual overthrow?
Which brings me to the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). While I’m convinced that one day it will be recognised as spectacularly wrong, at this point in history, each year its grip on popular opinion and on the scientific community seems to only strengthen.
I was disappointed to recently reread an article written in 2011 about the Murray River entitled ‘Water under the Bridge’. While its author, Kate Jennings, was sympathetic to my work, until I reread the piece I had forgotten her disparaging comments about my AGW scepticism. She wrote: “Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand.”
****
Update 31st December 2013. Comment from David Boyd.
Hi Jen,
I was disappointed in your interpretation of Kate’s references to you in her 2011 article as “disparaging”. I don’t think they were. She was stating a problem which we “enlightened sceptics” suffered from with our then minority position on the climate change nonsense.
Remember the full quote was-
“Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand. (We could also dismiss anything from the Wentworth Group because it is funded by the World Wildlife Fund, which could bias findings.)”
I think Kate’s comment was “disparaging” of the “commentariat”. How absurd to attempt to undermine somebodies views on one issue, because you disagree with their views on another.
David Boyd
****
Thanks David. Words, and how they are interpreted and how for the one person that interpretation can change.
For those who wish to form their own opinion, Kate’s essay can be read here… http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/october/1317956752/kate-jennings/water-under-bridge. It is also interesting to ponder the second paragraph…
“I insulted the Greens on purpose to get your attention. Green-ish myself. Climate change? Happening. Melting poles, warming oceans. People, do something! But if I’d started by discussing tillage fractures or SER statistics, you would’ve drifted, flipped the page. I also wanted to make a point about insults. If you begin an op-ed piece, as Tim Flannery did in the Age, with “… white Australia’s relationship with the bush has been a kind of rape and pillage”, your subsequent points about biochar as a source of energy or innovations in farming are completely lost on the audience you most want to reach…” The paragraph ends with reference to metaphors having consequences.
Kate is clear that she does believe in climate change including melting poles and warming oceans. Of course.
If an author needs to begin a piece in The Monthly on the Murray River with reference to climate change and explicitly state that she believes in it, what does this tell us about herself and/or her audience? My recent reference to Carl Jung’s writings are perhaps relevant here http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/11/against-collective-integration-carl-jung/ .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Kate Jennings is irrelevant in 2013 – 2014, a past poet, radical of no concern who idolises the remains of Tm Flannery and Tony Windsor rants and raves with a lust unbecoming to the long past memories of Germaine Greer and Julia Gillard (script by John McTerd).
Her article or rant in the Monthly years ago, was read by probably 52 people, all converts of the greatest poet, essayist, memoirist and novelist ever to have written for the ABC & Fairfax on one day in October 2011.
Overall, she is now non-exsistant as any life form of information in the blog world.
Sorry, 53 people read the article, (ME just then), so really as the force grows against such stupid people and writers like Kate, your work is becoming not as Kate said “Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic (SIC)” but much more, a leader with other online scientific questioners that will eventually change the minds of many against the stupidity of CAGW believers.
Ignore this sort of nutjob KATE JENNINGS poetic stupidity. She is no longer even a dot.com on the IT page. GONE, FINISHED, Goodbye KATE.
Jennifer, you forgot to include the word ‘officially’ before ‘recognised’.
Thing is that scientists have now opened up their mind and realized that AGW was just bad science. All it needs now is just the official recognition, which is a hard one to crack
Hi Alex, which scientists have realised that AGW is bad science? I see which research projects are funded, what is published, and what policies are progressed by academies, the media, and poliiticians and I see sceptics increasingly marginalized.
AGW is now mostly being pushed by the politicians and the MSM. I admit I was too generic in my statement, but scientists are coming over to our side. The extremist ones of course will persist in their erroneous science which is good since only these extremists will remain when the scam is over and its then that will be considered as the diabolical ones. >>To err is human, to persist is diabolical.<<
I'm sure that you have that long list of skeptical scientists that include heavyweight converts such as Sir James Lovelock, Fritz Vahrenholt, Sebastian Luning and many others.
It is the MSM and the politicians that must be rounded up. It's them that's keeping the corpse on the ventilator.
AGW is now mostly being pushed by the politicians and the MSM. I admit I was too generic in my statement, but scientists are coming over to our side. The extremist ones of course will persist in their erroneous science which is good since only these extremists will remain when the scam is over and its then that will be considered as the diabolical ones. >>To err is human, to persist is diabolical.<<
I'm sure that you have that long list of skeptical scientists that include heavyweight converts such as Sir James Lovelock, Fritz Vahrenholt, Sebastian Luning and many others.
It is the MSM and the politicians that must be rounded up. It's them that's keeping the climate scam corpse on the mechanical ventilator.
Despicable, like something out of the Climategate email revelations Jennifer. I see you’re still standing though.
Seems to be a common MO:
“[Insert “denier” name here] is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so [Insert gender (his/her) here] work on [Insert his/her work here] is dismissed out of hand.”
I agree with Alex, there are many skeptical scientists and they are getting ever more papers peer reviewed and printed.
But the politicians are something else, especially here in the UK, they are Rabid Greens and are quite happy to destroy our economy to prevent Global Warming, which of course they have absolutely no chance of doing.
In the USA the President, Democrats and the EPA are actually even worse.
Jennifer, you wrote:
“While I’m convinced that one day it will be recognised as spectacularly wrong, at this point in history, each year its grip on popular opinion and on the scientific community seems to only strengthen.”
There’s a very recent article about 2013 being a very bad year for Warmists at WUWT, reblogged from elsewhere
Regarding your initial question: It’s extremely difficult to undo a lobotomy, especially an auto-lobotomy. I’m reminded of a really bad joke.
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one — if the lightbulb really wants to change.
Speaking of spectacularly wrong consensus ‘science’, here’s a link to an article of mine at an online writers’ community:
http://larryfields.hubpages.com/hub/The-Lobotomy-Nobel
Fortunately, the paradigm was corrected. Pardon the shameless self-promotion.
The MDBP and in particular the memes about the Murray river are closely related.
I hope Kate Jennings didn’t mean SHE had dismissed you out of hand?
The wheel is turning very slowly and more and more people are noticing that the CAGW meme has been a case of gross exaggeration that has relied on the torturing of statistics, appealing to authority and emotional arguments.
People are noticing that the pathway to delivering all these noble environmental services based on a plethora of federal and state legislation are not living up to expectations and are in many cases underpinning significant harm.
I think we are lucky that people like Jen have been brave enough to speak up and risk the inevitable marginalisation. I hope that Kate Jennings does too?
Jennifer I think you are too pessimistic and I think 2013 has been a bad year for AGW/ CAGW. But I still think we must tackle their ICONS one by one.
David Middleton has just contributed this article on SLR at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/oh-say-can-you-see-modern-sea-level-rise-from-a-geological-perspective/
Just a quick list of some of the iconography that I can think of are———–
Dangerous SLR, Polar Bears, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Wild fires, Other extreme weather events, Human deaths from heat waves, Droughts, Floods, Rainfall, Snowfall, GBR, MDB, Global warming ( not evident for 15+ years or 17 years 3 months RSS ) OLR, More humidity in the system, Ocean acidity, Extinctions, etc. But there will be many more, just you wait.
Just about every iconic disaster above has been disproved or is very doubtful or little change when compared to interglacial histories over the last 800,000 years.
How long? Never. I am completely pessimistic about this meme disappearing; it has too many roots now, from green misanthropy, to the vast funding green and pro-agw groups get, to socialism rediscovering itself as an environmental movement.
More importantly generations of believers now occupy important parts of academia, bureaucracies, government at all levels and even the judiciary. AGW is a staple in education at all levels and our young have been effectively brainwashed not only in education but through the media and entertainment outlets.
I think because you are directly being attacked it’s clouding your view of whats happening. This scam is dying as nature is on our side, science is on our side and it’s simply not cool anymore to just spout what you’re being told in the media.
The longer people are being hurt by this never-ending recession in the West the harder it will be to convince them that even more money needs to be taken out of their pockets to fight something that they haven’t experienced yet. Economics trumps all and elections will put into power those who campaign on reining in the taxpayer funded spending on this nonsense. Up here in Canada the last two elections have been won by the party that demonized a carbon tax and cap and trade as a great big tax on everything. You have done the same down under. Japan and Germany realize their mistake and are backing away from it. David Cameron said they have to get rid of the “green crap”.
All those leaders have found out the economics don’t work and are throwing the green crap under the bus to the delight of the majorities in their respective countries. The UN in the end will be forced to back down simply because the West will not give any more money to their redistributive global warming scam anymore. If they continue to push those countries will simply quit the UN and take their money elsewhere. The beast is being starved and will die because of it.
Quote: “… and I see sceptics increasingly marginalised.”
There is good news of sorts out there-
Spiegel Interview With Film-Maker:
Climate Communication A Huge Failure…”Most Boring Subject On Earth”!
“Skeptics spun circles around the climate crowd”
“In summary the climate issue is boring people to death.
As a result it’s going to be awfully damn tough to get people to listen to a dead-boring story for the hundredth time.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/20/spiegel-interview-with-film-maker-climate-communication-a-failure-most-boring-subject-on-earth/#comments
Merry Xmas to all @ Ms Jen’s blog.
Next year we twist the dagger and rub salt in the wound.
I agree with the general thrust of the comments so far. There is no doubt that some politicians and green/socialist activists are crying ever more loudly butt hats how these things generally work. One cannot expect such people to change because they have too much invested, it is the basis of theirplatform. However under that the scientists slowly withdraw support and far more importantly the public does so. At some point they change their allegiance. The politicians involved do not change, they are changed. Its a bit like the old adage in science – radically new theories are never accepted its just that those opposed die out and for the next generation its not a radically new theory but one they grew up with.
In Australia I think to some degree its already happened. The last federal election was indeed at least partly about the carbon tax and we seem to be forgetting just ho bad the landslide was for labour. The msm appear to be trying to create the impression it was a near thing and the liberals won through lies and deceit. Infact it was the opposite, a landslide which labour lost through deceit and lies. Tony Abbott and the liberals clearly do not believe in the theory of CAGW, their CAGW policy is a sop which I think they well know is money down the drain for political exediency. Trouble is that right now they simply do not have the political courage to come out and express their disbelief explicitly. Personally I think they might be surprised at the result if they did because if Tony Abbott gave a speech where he points out some of the contradictions in CAGW is the msm simply not going to report his speech? – nice juicy public interest, publics right to know, reporting it would sell lots of air time and papers. Some will and its going to be pretty obvious pretty soon which do and which dont.
I notice some politicians are starting to talk up now. I think it will increase especially if in the near term we see some cooling.
The fastest way to wreck the mitigation part of the fraud is to somehow spread the message of the impossibility of any mitigation working at all.
It’s so simple to understand yet it seems almost inmpossible to get anyone to discuss the facts. We have the projections, until 2040 the OECD will only contribute 6% of new emissions while the non OECD will contribute 94%.
I’ve tried toexplain the mitigation fraud to people and nearly evryone I talk to haven’t got a clue about these numbers. Most just give me a blank stare, but I direct them to the EIA site and most at least become more sceptical and start to understand the billions $ we will waste every year trying to mitigate this mission impossible farce.
Of course the hip pocket nerve takes over with every rise in electricity prices and this will only increase over time.
If we could only explain the facts to people that they are paying ever increasing prices for a provable ZERO return the majority will become very hostile,very quickly.
But we need a Bolt or a Jones to hit people between the eyes with the mitigation fraud at least and thrive on the reaction in the media.
Hi cohenite,
You are so right about the brainwashing. It is a special kind, where to read or repeat anything to the contrary is tantamount to sin. Sin against the future of the Planet .
Some, close to home, are shocked and almost outraged that one could even doubt.
However Deb, I have noticed that a lot of rural do or die red team supporters, are now solidly against the SA freshwater line. Completely reversing views of a couple of years ago.
The same people are also looking sceptically and quietly at the weather stories.
We must also remember the study which showed (recently) , that if 10% of a population had an unshakeable belief in something it swayed enough opinion to change circumstances. And we all know some unshakeables .
We just need our 10% to be really actively communicating.
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v84/i1/e011130
Merry Xmas Jen and thanks for keeping your neck out there, communicating
A.C. Osborn, Michael Hammer, Neville, Handjive, Larry, Chris F, Alex, Debbie, et al.,
My pessimism is with the scientists, and in particular the climate science community.
This last year I meet with, and attended seminars with, climate scientists at the University of East Anglia (UK) and University of Reading (UK). They are better funded, and more determined than ever. The evidence may be running against them, but they are covering it up in ever more sophisticated publications, arguments and appeals to authority.
I am unaware of any university-based UK climate scientists who are ‘sceptical’?
This year, within Australia, Bob Carter was essentially sacked from James Cook University and Murray Salby from Macquarie University.
How many university-based ‘sceptics’ are now left in Australia? Stewart Franks at the University of Tasmania, and…
Also earlier this year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology swapped over from basing its seasonal forecasts on statistical models to now wholly on GCMs. I phoned around to discuss this with climate scientists and the overwhelming ‘consensus’ was that the Australian climate is on a new trajectory so that statistical models won’t work (never mind the empirical evidence to the contrary).
I’ve been reading referee reports, received feedback on funding applications, and more. Within the climate science community in the UK and Australia the commitment to AGW is overwhelming.
Furthermore, as Cohenite points out in the above thread, AGW is now a staple in education, including tertiary education.
Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to decieve. The UK has wasted countless billions $ on wind and solar over decades only to end up with this mess.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10528157/Hundreds-of-businesses-to-be-paid-to-switch-off-to-prevent-blackouts.html
What liars and fraudsters these people are, at least Germany are trying to rectify their idiocy of waste on S&Wind and are now building a number of new coal fired power stations to help mend their grid.
Jennifer I’m sure you’re correct in your top end assertions, but I’m also sure the public are not happy about paying ever higher energy costs and are definitely becoming more sceptical about CAGW.
Certainly all the polls show that people have little interest in CAGW propaganda anymore. These polls are consistently bad for CAGW in every western country and that’s all that matters.
But nobody will use my method of kicking the mitigation con in the nuts. If we use verifiable numbers and play very dirty and appeal to the person in the street in 2014 we will get a much better result.
I couldn’t care less about scientific fraudsters, I’m only interested in getting the message out to the electorate. And Mitigation of CAGW by the OECD is the biggest con and fraud for at least 100 years. As we know India and China etc couldn’t care less about CAGW because they have an agenda to lift another billion ( at least) people out of severe poverty as soon as they can.
“How many university-based ‘sceptics’ are now left in Australia? Stewart Franks at the University of Tasmania, and…”
David Stockwell at Rockie; Is Ridd still going? Plimer?
The scientists and academics will have to change as the public’s perception continues to go against them. Media will start to pay more attention to the scientists who call for cooling as we continue to cool. They’ll simply be outnumbered and will continue to look even more foolish as they peddle lies that are going against the public’s eyes.
Bare facts will force their hand.
Ah come on. Sceptics are having a panic attack as the public ignores their rantings, eccentricity and the warming continues. What cooling?
Here’s the standard – last thread we had a proclamation from sceptic authority on a data series known for discontinuities and satellite processing artifacts, and that conflicts with published literature. What a belly laugh ! Come on – wouldn’t get past grade 1 peer review.
But let’s be serious this isn’t about Phlogiston – this simply the same old same old anti-enviro lobby and multi-million dollar think tanks – see acid rain, auto air pollution, land clearing, endangered species and big tobacco wrapped up with all the other far right agenda.
There isn’t a single killer sceptic paper in the literature (and mostly unpublished – peer review avoiding). It’s all try-ons and nonsense. The level of sceptic debate is trivial. Thank heavens mainstream science is awake to all the far right anti-enviro shenanigans. Who knows how much is spent by secret donors http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/21/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/
Meanwhile as the Arctic melts away, the Hadley cell expands, and ENSO changes, sceptics will deny to the end – as we know – even when it’s happening it’s not happening, there’s an excuse for everything. It’s called but but but ….. at some point the compelling list of the obvious perhaps is the simplest explanation.
Anyway would be prophetic for the risk free Aussie CO2 dumpers to be caught on the receiving end on already changed ENSO behaviour – http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v504/n7478/full/nature12683.html and especially for Cohenite’s delectation “Increasing frequency of extreme El Nino events due to greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change, in press (Cai et al).”
AGW scepticism isn’t about science – it’s about politics and being in a special little club for the disenchanted. Bring on the Royal Commission so we can have some serious questions instead of stunts and sophistry. Science isn’t about public perception or we’d still be burning witches.
Anyway the electorate doesn’t give a hoot really – everyone’s down the shops and at the beach, cricket or footy. And being a selfish fickle lot we’ll chuck Abbott out as quickly as we put him in. We don’t know what we want – do we?
But meanwhile in our best far right government in Aussie – the proto Abbott “how to do it” Queensland Newman exemplar who will never be removed from power, I note pages 20 and 21 here http://queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/visions/assets/qld-plan-working-draft.pdf and I understand that the participants were a very serious cross section of the whole community (it’s statistically thingy). Looks like sceptics are really out of step with enviro public opinion in the conservative state. I’m now blue not red under my bed !
I am optimistic. But it will take time. And constantly challenging the AGW propaganda.
There is huge AGW vested interest – a gravy train – it will take time for those funds to dry up. The economic bite of green “taxes” is hurting the community, it will, and is, responding.
I think starting at the top (Climate Office, etc) is a good way to dismantle the apparatus.
Getting the ABC and SBS to stop the alarmist reporting would help a lot.
DaveMyFace,
Sorry. I’ve only just found your comment, and obvious now released because it now begins this thread.
In response…
While only 52 or so people may have read her piece online, the shorter version, published in The Monthly, would have reached a considerably larger audience of ‘opinion leaders’ and ABC journalists.
When I first read the piece in 2011 I was really excited that she had picked up on the issue of the barrages and the possibility of restoring the estuary. When I re-read the piece yesterday her comments about AGW seemed more obvious and somehow shocking.
Ian Thompson,
Like your link. And we should all take heart from it.
Luke,
Have you ever heard of the term “ticking your own homework” ?
State Govts depts. are particularly good at it and even more particularly the departments who work in the NRM space.
BTW this one is ludicrous:
“this simply the same old same old anti-enviro lobby and multi-million dollar think tanks “–
Most people here are definitely pro enviro, just anti environmentalism (as in the political movement), which has multi millions at its disposal too.
What’s your particular gripe with ‘think tanks’ anyway?
Coz Debs it’s all fifth column astroturfing.
“Most people here are definitely pro enviro” hahahahahahaha
Let’s try a non-AGW checklist for a change
Land clearing
Reef catchment runoff from agriculture and grazing
Endangered species management
Reserves and national park expansion
Biodiversity management (what’s that?)
Any development v environmental assets
Renewable energy except for hydro
Carbon sequestration – soils, vegetation
Environmental water allocations (WHAT !!)
Dam building vs aquatic species
Acid rain (some years ago here)
Regulation of CFCs for ozone depletion
Native forestry
Pesticide residues
Dryland or irrigation salinity
GMOs in agriculture
Fire management and fire ecology
Introduced pastures grasses and legumes (or are they legal weeds?)
You might get some diversity of opinion on CSG fracking and nuclear power
Probably pro-military intervention in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
But I’d suggest most here would take an anti-enviro movement stance on most of the list. i.e. greens are nongs/evil, liberal ecologists and governments wouldn’t know.
And just before you verbal me – don’t assume where I am on every item on the list.
Hi luke,
Sorry , you leave me , not only breathless, but back in the space , where I worry if we are all , actually, ” RUNED”
National Parks in forests which were grown by foresters , for timber.
“White man’s forests ”
And the enviro water is already going down , weirs and rivers are popping up and down , banks falling in and trees diving in behind them. And the IMPOSSIBLE flow hasn’t even started.
Constant medium flood level .
Not even going to touch your other ‘points’ . You are right off tap this time, mate
Verbal you? Verbal the verbuller sans pareil? Heaven ferbid. )
Well I said Ian T – don’t verbal me didn’t I. See Beth !
BTW Ian I don’t think you’d know ecological value if you fell over it – shoot it, root it, chop it down, flood it, regulate it, over-allocate it, don’t bother visiting the outback – sit on the bank at Home Hill and watch it wash past.
Anyway complain to the representative swag that filled out the Queensland Plan.
I’m keen to learn more about how the following theories, that once had the support of the scientific consensus, were falsified:
The stress theory of ulcers;
Immovable continents;
Phlogiston; and
Miasmatic theory of disease.
Etcetera.
But I shall start deleting off-topic comment.
Perhaps something from Beth about Einstein?
Well of course those issues were replaced by a better theory. With AGW, sceptics are trying to replace it with nothing. It’s not about an alternative.
“delectation “Increasing frequency of extreme El Nino events due to greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change, in press (Cai et al).”
I’m glad Cai has [re]discovered ENSO “asymmetry”; he thought it was natural before:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3501.1
Asymmetry has been around a long time:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011PA002139/abstract
Pardon my scepticism about projections of further asymmetry that are based in turn on projections of “westward mean equatorial currents” being reduced by AGW, and that Vecchi is quoted.
But carry on luke; I can’t imagine how pleased you are that your side is winning the war via the mighty intellect of the MSM and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists and sundry other 3rd raters.
Sorry for the peculiar referencing here Jennifer, but tried to bring up the passage
re Einstein expressing his critical attitude to his own theory which he attempted
to refute. He wrote that if his predicted red shift in the specrtrum of the Satellites
of Sirius and other white dwarfs had not been found he would have considered his
theory refuted.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=W0jP04qn0uoC&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=Einstein+attempted+to+refute+his+own+theory+red+shift&source=bl&ots=puoX4VnXTi&sig=9I5oES7_L746uiAdfLuLbeFC04g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vcu2UpG3AYSxkgW2uoBI&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Einstein%20attempted%20to%20refute%20his%20own%20theory%20red%20shift&f=false
Re the Ulcer theory referred to above,wasn’t it considered an established fact
that stomach ulcers were caused by stress? When a bacteria was isolated from
the stomachs of ulcer sufferers and the scientist infected himself with this bacteria
and got an ulcer, didn’t this falsify the ‘ulcers caused by stress’ theory?
Hi Luke,
Unlike many friends of the viramit, I spend most of my life working and traveling in the outback.
I can show you recent, ( as in during the last drought ), photos of the Darling river as dry as a tennis court.
I can remember how we all dismissed as stupidity the computer generated predictions that it would stay that way. Predictions based on AGW assumptions.
I can’t show you recent photos of the Murray as dry as that, because people had the foresight to put in major storages , which kept it flowing right through the drought.
I can , however show you ” before ” pictures with drays and the like being driven across the Murray , picnics and outings being held in the river bed.
The forests ,locked up in Southern NSW were not there when white men began their occupation of the area. There were clumps of forest , open grassy plains , lakes and swamps. Foresters propagated and controlled them , after cattle helped the eucalypts to start some serious colonising.
You probably ought to visit some place like Louth , where generations , black and white have lived, watching and constantly learning the vagaries of Oz climate. Knowledge which can make or break them. The people there are , by necessity, open minded. They would hear you out politely , they wouldn’t embarrass you by picking holes in your information train. They would take in any new information and check it out.
Just keep it in mind that the environment you want to save , is they one they have been saving for generations.
A man in his eighties, who has spent his entire life on the Darling, spoke to me of his disgust at how noogoora burr has been allowed to infest inland waterways , there are parts of the Cuttaburra which are virtually unapproachable because of it. It is poisonous to most herbivores.
That is an environmental problem ignored by planet savers.
Like cats , it is unmentionable , because it came out of someone’s backyard.
I’m 61 years old. I lived the best years of my life under the sword of Damocles, the Cold War, always under the threat of a nuclear war, nuclear winter, death, destruction. But I was always optimistic. When I was 15 years old I had this great wish that one day someone, a man, would rise to power through the Soviet Politburo itself and declare the Soviet Union a democratic place, end the cold war, and bring peace to the world. It actually happened when I was around 38 years old, Gorbachov.
Nobody would have thought that one day that powerful evil empire would implode and be dissolved in a matter of months without a single bomb exploding anywhere.
This is what will happen to The Scam of the Century. It has many parallels with communism: The increasing poverty, the lack of energy, unemployment, the anti-Christian trait embedded within the Green DNA. Even Samizdat, that crude but effective manner by which freedom loving Russians shared information has its parallel: Skeptic Blogs. Everything fits. When the implosion hits it will be devastating.
And all this will happen because people like you, Jennifer, and there are many and we are increasing, are standing up to be counted and the plebs are hearing us, they feel the poverty, the pinch, the cold winters, the expensive fuels and electricity…..
WUWT has new tornado reference page showing all the data on tornadoes over many years. It goes without saying that 2013 has been a low count year and F3 to F5 tornadoes have not increased over the years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/introducing-the-new-dana-nuccitelli-commemorative-wuwt-tornado-reference-page/#more-99705
Like Jennifer we owe Watts a debt of gratitude for having the guts to give us the facts and tell the truth about this scam of CAGW that has ignorantly led to the super expensive, much greater scam of OECD mitigation.
Well said Alex.
As I’ve said before AGW, like other creeds, is based very largely on misanthropy and a disdain for the welfare of humans.
However, if it wasn’t for the oppressiveness AGW would be amusing; it’s ‘science’ is hilarious. Luke always cheers me up when he presents his papers. I always read them and get a laugh. As Thomas Peacock said:
“The worst thing is good enough to be laughed at, though it be good for nothing else; and the best thing, though it be good for something else, is good for nothing better.”
So, a hearty laugh for everyone here and best wishes for Christmas.
Anti environment stance?
There is no alternative?
What total sophistic rubbish!
Maybe Luke would like to explain what he thinks the solution to all these dreadful disasters would be?
The GBR & the MDB were off to hell in a handbasket at least 20 years ago.
I agree with Ian. . .Luke needs to get out some more and look at what’s REALLY happening and understand the difference between REAL damage and MANUFACTURED, hand waving, faux enviro, newspeak.
There are some REAL problems that will need some SENSIBLE management solutions that all the screeching about CAGW with attendant extra money, extra depts . . . more more MORE! . . . and the big “it’s all our fault that THEY have to fix it” stick. . . will achieve NOTHING. . .is achieving NOTHING!
Most of the stuff you have listed is SOOOOooooo last century.
Well Jen tries to be all science philosophical and portray AGW as a fad – well it’s the sceptics that are the fad. As I said above a refuge for the disenchanted and those having Walter Mitty moments. Fed by “defense of freedom” shadowy industry funding sources. It’s nefarious.
If sceptics were serious they’d be queuing up to present to CSIRO and BoM and show them where they’re wrong. That’s what Barry Marshall did with Helicobacter pylori – took it straight to the conferences. They wouldn’t be plotting to destroy the science funding base and sack people. At least John Daly used to do the rounds of the science workshops.
This is an attack on science pure and simple. The moment you think you’re Galileo and leading us into the light, check in for therapy.
So on cue – Alex says “oooo It’s communism”. Really. What a hoot. You’ve never had some much freedom and information. Let’s face it 100s of sceptics all with their little blogs exposing this and that. All disagreeing with each other’s science fundamentals. You are the totalitarians wanting to replace the ABC and Fairfax with Fox News. Bugger off. It’s not yours.
So Jen wants to replace AGW – with what – a dozen contradictory theories that are unpublished. You just have to laugh.
Neville – wake up – Watts has been exposed time and time again as the greatest disinformation source ever with a following of rabid threatening rednecks. Read the comments. Listen to yourselves.
Climate Fraudit is Denial of Service attack on anyone doing any real work.
And Cohenite wants to do science yet prefers the refuge of unpublished scoundrels. And Cohenite himself says about a disdain for the welfare of humans. So cue the misanthropy and communism tag line for the followers. Crank it up. When that’s exactly what AGW is about. AGW sceptcism is about taking a huge careless one-off mega-risk.
For Cohenite and speaking of scientists “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not”
Footnotes: Neville forgets to tell us about the record tornado season before and thinks we’re that stupid. Weather whiplash. Mate for every skanky denialist op-ed there’s someone of credibility waiting to tell the full story.
Ian T – http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/mapserv/landuse/pdf_files/Web_LandUseataGlance.pdf Figure 2 – the amount of land clearing for agriculture and grazing is phenomenal. The Brigalow northern and southern Brigalow belts are decimated. There’s an anthropogenic induced woody weed patch around Cobar of Tasmanian size. And you’d like to convince me that you’re on top of it. Come on. Major portions of the northern MDB overallocated. Not enough to go around.
And please submit the hydrology report that said it would never rain again. Look forward to reading it.
Good old luke; he never fails to deliver; he says:
“And please submit the hydrology report that said it would never rain again. Look forward to reading it.”
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/721285/csiro-bom-report-future-droughts.pdf
Here’s the rebuttal:
http://landshape.org/enm/files/2010/10/Critique-of-DECR-EE.pdf
Luke!
“This is an attack on science pure and simple.”
What absolute BS!
The point of contention is and has always been the social and political ideology that has been promoted as the means to mitigate environmental/weather/climate issues.
You always default to the assumption that if people question:
a) the clearly obvious exaggeration of climate science (not by the scientists Luke but by the attached PR machine and the AGW celebs) that leads to such comments as “the science is settled”.
b) the obvious torturing of statistics (from all camps)
c) the fact that the political environmentalist movement resorts to unsubstantiated & hand waving predictions of doom and gloom
d) the profligate waste of resources and the ‘tick your own homework’ lack of transparency in ever increasing levels of bureaucracy. . .
e) all of the above and heaps of other negative “we’ll all be rooned” predictions that have a very bad ‘misanthropic’ after taste and offer no sensible mitigation solutions but just simply point the finger.
Then that therefore means that people are members of some mysterious, anti environmental conspiracy and they just want to ‘shoot it, root it, chop it down…..” and etc.
If you can throw in another couple of sneers like “multi million dollar think tanks” and that person works for or… used to work for… something else like “big mining”, then that is put up as further proof of this mysterious ‘anti enviro’ or ‘sceptic’ or ‘denier’ etc etc highly organised ‘anti science’ movement.
Yet most of the people who comment here are NOTHING like that at all. Most of the people who comment here have REAL connections with the natural environment.
BTW it wasn’t a HYDROLOGY report that said it would never rain again. . . that is actually the POINT!
It was a bunch of AGW CELEBS and POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS who claimed to have SCIENCE on their side who said it would never rain again and that the conditions during the millennium drought were to be expected as the new normal.
Same sort of people who claim they have scientific PROOF that the recent bushfires in NSW were because of CAGW.
Same sort of people who claim that the MDB is ‘over allocated’ when they clearly don’t know the difference between allocation and entitlement or understand that the system is highly variable and a ‘one size fits all’ set of rules is just pure nonsense.
Same sort of people who coin terms like ‘climate criminals’.
I was raised and educated to respect science and scientists along with others who are employed to monitor and regulate our society. I was raised and educated to respect and co exist with my environment and take responsibility for my immediate environment. I was raised and educated to be a net producer, efficient recycler, self sufficient, charitable and self reliant. . . not a net consumer who expects a free ride and ‘security’.
Your sneering accusations about ‘anti science’ and ‘anti enviro’ are highly amusing and based on rubbish memetics and a great deal of ‘faux sophistry’.
I do not see myself as your enemy Luke. . . no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
My hope for you this holiday season Luke, is that you might get some time to relax with friends and family and hopefully understand that most people are just doing the best they can and growing and learning to build on their successes and take responsibility for… and learn from… their mistakes. Aussies are not perfect and of course there are bad apples, but the negative ranting that goes on from BOTH EXTREMES is just that….negative ranting.
Merry Christmas and all the best for the holiday season to Jen and everyone else.
Luke: “This is an attack on science pure and simple.”
What rubbish!
The scientific method requires an hypothesis, an experiment, experimental data, publication of results including methodology and data, indepenent replication and verification.
AGW hucksters dont make the data available, and the methodology is usually not repeatable.
Remember that the University of East Anglia “lost the data”. You call thath “science”!
You are no scientist, or scientific supporter Luke. You are a nasty political animal who uses sciencey sounding terms, provides links to rubbish AGW sites, and uses nothing more ad hominem attacks to make spurious points.
Luke – you are the scientific fraud and con man. And your response …. but …. think of the children!
And as Neville says – as long as India and China continue to develop and produce CO2 – Oz’s efforts are nothing more than a spit in the ocean.
When the Climate Crime do begin Luke – what will be your defence?
Here’s the lastest datasets info on warming, no warming and no stat significant warming( Nick Stokes used) etc from Werner Brozek and Just The Facts.
The first graph showing temp comparison for 2013 from Had 4 and Giss is a beauty.
I hope Cohers may make a comment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/hadcrut4-is-from-venus-giss-is-from-mars-now-includes-november-data/#more-99765
Cohenite – nope doesn’t say that – – ding ding – try again. In fact their findings are more relevant than ever. – Look out the window !
And you’d have to laugh – a rebuttal published in E&E the non-science peer review dodging sceptics journal of choice. Ho ho ho.
So Cohenite when are you and your denialist mates going to give CSIRO and BoM a seminar and show them where they’re wrong. What Barry Marshall did to the medical community. He wouldn’t be sneaking around with secret handshake fifth columnists and nefarious funding sources.
Go in the front door. Make the challenge ! Time for sceptics to stop skulking around and make the presentation.
That comment assumes that there is a well organised, funded, organisation that has the time and resources to take on the CSIRO and BoM. . .there isn’t
More sophistry from Luke.
The sad part is that BoM and CSIRO have somewhat lost their way and are busy ‘justifying’ themselves and using PR nonsense to appear relevant.
The ever increasing layers of bureaucratic NRM legislation is turning these once excellent institutions who used to know how to work WITH their public into finger pointing, moralising, PR hungry. . . self appointed policeman!
The PUBLIC who live and work every day in the REAL environment/weather/climate is NOT(!) the enemy.
As Ian suggests, get out there and check for yourself Luke. . . and stop repeating political environmentalist rubbish.
Neville, this IMO is the important graph:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2013/offset:0.087/plot/gistemp/from:2013/offset:-0.23/plot/uah/from:2013/offset:-0.104/plot/rss/from:2013/offset:-0.04/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2013/offset:-0.05/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2013/offset:0.01/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2013/offset:0.108
The offsets are necessary because all have different base periods. But when normalised the discrepancies between the various temp sets is greater than the alleged temp increase.
Luke, there is a working group which keeps me as a mascot which has a couple of retired BOM and CSIRO guys. They don’t have to genuflect to the great god of AGW anymore. It’ll all come out eventually.
So this is amazing Debbie. So you lot know to 6 decimal places that CSIRO and BoM are wrong. Jen from on high has pronounced that AGW is falsified. You’re utterly sure. The knowledge is total and absolute.
So like Barry Marshall of Helicobacter pylori fame wouldn’t you be straight in the front door with your “evidence”.
Unless of course you don’t know what you’re talking about.
This goes to the heart of Jen’s post. What do you think you’re going to do as an alternative. Wear them down. Defund them (always popular with the far right). Carry out incremental blog stunts until they capitulate. One morning wake up and find Bob Carter in charge of BoM.
Drive aviation forecasting with neural networks?
You’re having yourself on.
Cohenite has answers for every AGW paper. So stop skulking around and present them in a devastating seminar (series). If they won’t host you I’m sure a university would in the interest of free speech.
Climate is not the enemy eh – well why would you need all those billions in drought aid then. Surely as native-mode naked true climate masters of the universe you’d have it all in the bag. You’d have shut the farm gate ahead of time (with the sceptic true gold 12 months ahead advice?), sold the commodities, and been at the beach. Or perhaps moved to your South American operations for 12 months while ENSO plays out.
You can’t have it both ways Debs.
Cohenite – “it’ll all come out eventually”. Doesn’t sound certain to me. What does the Australian Sceptics Party stand for then. Nothing obviously except to carry on like a bunch of fifth columnists. So you can afford to import Watts and Monckton at great cost to address the gullible and the faithful and yet you won’t challenge the institutions.
Isn’t it simple – you line up the case against and present it to them ! Surely you’re absolutely certain of your position? Would Einstein have backed off?
Fair enough luke; I think we can claim a lot more than just touring with Anthony and LM. I think ACORN was expedited due to an application to the Commonwealth auditor about adjustments of the HQ network. The NZ NIWA case however took the wind out of some sails which were heading towards a similar case here.
I also think the Libs purloined the No Carbon Tax slogan of TCS.
To rub salt into the wound, fatboy gave his preferences to Sarah 2 dads and she got elected instead of Leon Ashby.
The 3 areas now being researched, as well as continual analysis of the ACORN network adjustments, are:
1 Whether the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.
2 The relationship between temp and CO2, drawing on Beenstock’s work.
3 The role of the sun using David’s solar accumulation theory.
Cohers you’ll have to help me here. You’ve started all the sets at 0.4, but why do some diverege greatly from the others for some months?
Are they measuring the temp from the same planet or not? I notice this finishes in August, why is that?
UAH and RSS certainly diverge a long way from the other sets again. What is this or isn’t this showing?
Well Cohenite – if you want to help Jen overthrow the big bad AGW paradigm being legends in your own little sailing club and publishing in E&E ain’t gonna cut it. I mean it’s just a little club for the disenchanted isn’t it. You THINK BoM expedited ACORN because of a referral to the Auditor (giggle). You THINK do you? They’d eat you for brekky mate.
Barry Marshall would have stormed the Bastille by now. What’s stopping you? Still working up your “theory” I guess.
Neville does temperature 101 – ROFL. You’d have to wonder if he doesn’t know by now.
“Neville does temperature 101 – ROFL.”
Right, smartie pants, you explain why there is so much divergence and lack of correlation between the various temperature indices; they are all measuring the same thing aren’t they?
Luke?
Climate is not the enemy?
Who said that?
The climate doesn’t give a flying rip about us mere mortals! It never has.
I wrote that the PUBLIC who live and work in the REAL environment every single day is NOT(!) the enemy.
What is the alternative?
Isn’t that what you were asked earlier when you listed up all those anti enviro memes and then claimed that this is an attack on science?
But. . . unlike you. . . happy to answer the question in terms of NRM.
I don’t think ‘defunding’ is the answer.
The FOCUS needs to change.
If BoM and CSIRO and all the various bureaucratic depts. who work in the NRM space were focused on SERVING the public who live and work in the REAL environment instead of dreaming up new rules and regulations to POLICE the public and MARGINALISE them and call them such names as DENIERS. . . . then people like me would be happy to fund them more and support them.
However. . . while they HAND WAVE and cosy up to the URBAN ELITE who actually don’t even live in the REAL environment. . .then the people who should be working WITH them are instead finding themselves forever being ATTACKED by AGW celebs and the political environmental movement using non specific, precautionary principle related, streams of data analysis that ends up being GROSSLY exaggerated.
BTW…not interested in revisiting your uninformed opinion on drought aid, we have been down that road before . . .but I am interested in that report that says that rural and remote communities think they know all about the climate and have it ‘all in the bag’. . . peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal of course.
I am also interested in your explanation with supporting references that lead you to infer that I am arguing to have it both ways.
Lindzen delivers an assessment to the UK House of Commons committee on IPCC AR5. He rips into the whole CAGW scare and although it’s long it’s well worth a read.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/energy-and-climate-change/Professor-Richard-Lindzen-(IPC0047).pdf
Cohers – some incorporate the poles some don’t. Sensing the atmosphere with MSU isn’t the same as ground measurements. One could start at what are we measuring.
Debbie perhaps BoM and CSIRO staff are simply sick of the abuse. They didn’t sign on for it.
Incidentally there is a view that science shouldn’t advocate at all – by Gavin Schmidt – http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2337
Perhaps scientists shouldn’t advocate at all – that would please Debs but thwart Jen who clearly believes in advocacy.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/climate-scientists-policies
Meanwhile in areas not traversed by blog denialiti lest they turn to stone – a non hysterical analysis of temperature – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/#more-16547 Neville might note the lack of screeching and could gain some basic education by reading it.
No luke, the RC article is disingenuous. It refers to Cowan and Way, a thoroughly discredited paper and ignores the fact that the satellites are showing NO temp increase for periods up to and over 20 years.
That is a climatically significant period.
If AGW was not a politicised and ideological promoted idea it would be scientifically dead by now.
There is no THS, an essential requirement of AGW.
The Stratosphere is NOT cooling; another essential requirement.
The OD of the atmosphere has not changed; a fundamental requirement.
OLR is either static or increasing.
SST is declining; this fact along with increased OLR kills the deep OHC increase hope of AGW.
Extreme weather is NOT increasing; which is ambiguous for reasons I have explained before.
There is no certainty the increase in CO2 is even anthropogenic in origin.
At every time level there is no correlation between CO2 and temp.
It is a disproved theory.
Yet it shuffles along aided and abetted by a grotesquely stupid media, ratbag academics and pollies and corrupted scientific bodies.
Pronounces the unpublished unrecognised Cohenite. So when’s the big seminar series? Face it there won’t be one. Just more blog sooking.
OLR – you don’t know the trend unless you’re endorsing M Hammers giggle with a flawed discontinuous data set
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/jail-time-for-noticing-its-warming-good-lord/
You don’t know if you have a THS or not
Extreme weather is increasing
SST declining – well really – wonder where all the papers saying the opposite are going – depends where you look doesn’t it
And now the regular heart beat of CO2 series of Mauna Loa is “natural”
No correlation between CO2 and temp – only a palaeo free scoundrel would try that on
It’s only disproved by the militant Sceptic Political Wing on non climate scientists. And Jen wonders what she’s going to have to do to over turn the theory.
Ho ho ho ho it’s Xmas !
Cohenite stop pissing around and present to the establishment and see how you go ! Otherwise wallow in blog oblivion.
Ok, I have some time on my hands; let’s deal with this one first:
“Extreme weather is increasing”
Present your evidence.
For heaven’s sake, how long does it take to produce some ‘evidence’ of extreme weather; just go the greens website or get together some of Bandt’s press releases.
Luke,
Fairly simple question by Cohenite.
Tim Flannery has 5 CAGW myth-buster tips on the Climate Council website, you could cut and paste that rubbish. But unfortunately evidence is required, not Algorerithms.
Or you could just make stuff up like the obsolete Kate Jennings does.
Luke u r the master of smoke’n mirrors rhetoric. Tsk!
Never-the-less I will wish u , as I wish Jennifer and denizens,
A Happy Xmas. beth-the-serf.
Cohenite – I haven’t got time just to keep you happy. I’ve had to traverse across town to purchase a Vidal Sassoon Curl Secret Hair Styler. Priorities pls. I’m not here 24 x 7 – I’m out and about.
Kerry Emmanuel’s classic is enough.
Beth – study English in 2014 and you are not a medieval serf. I however am a druid.
Ha! New Year resolutions for luke: don’t be a piker; and don’t BS a BSer.
Luke, Luke, Luke,
Don’t tell me you buy USA hair products, Vidal Sassoon are owned by Regis Hair Salons an American listed company.
Seems like it’s not on your list to buy Australian Luke?
Priorities are not on your list.
Kerry Emanuel says, “It makes me feel to some extent disgusted with politics and to some extent ashamed to be an American.”
And he also stated that “Top Australian climate scientists said they had been targeted by death threats and menacing phone calls, including threats of sexual attacks on family members.” All lies as you know from the AFP report.
You Luke, are a Kate Jennings hate campaign follower, you using the only tools left to you, stupidity.
AGW ‘science’ fails the scientific method. It fails dismally. AGW is a hypothesis that says that increasing atmospheric CO2 (be it natural or anthropogenic CO2) will linearly produce an increase in the atmosphere’s, hydrosphere’s and cryosphere’s total energy which would result in an increased temperature in all three -spheres.
After 30 years of measurements it has resulted that while the linear CO2 increase kept steady, the global average temperature remained in as stasis for longer than it increased.
Having seen this AGW hypothesis’ meltdown at the hands of nature, the AGW pushers have gone fairy-tale telling, inventing stores such as ‘hiding in the ocean’, oceans’ acidification an even Hollywoodian end-of-the-world scenarios that would be laughable if not coming out of ‘mainstream’ science, which actually is politics and pseudo-journalism and not science at all.
May I recommend to all to read The Neglected Sun by Vahreholt and Luning. It’s a compelling read.
Warning: It contains material that would be highly psychologically disturbing to Eric and his peers.
“Debbie perhaps BoM and CSIRO staff are simply sick of the abuse. They didn’t sign on for it. ”
Says the all knowing Luke.
Well the tax payers didn’t sign onto their collective misrepresentations, conflicts of interest, incompetence, and knowingly being involved in IPCC processes that any reasonably intelligent and managerially experienced person quickly would see was a distortion of the scientific process, and was set up from the beginning to deceive.
Further if they were people of real integrity they wouldn’t condone the blatant con-jobs involved in
not taking account of the land and sea areas occupied by the sovereign governments, or the methods of carbon accounting etc..etc
….and on and on the list goes.
If the poor dears are upset at being criticised for the crap work they have produced and they way they have manipulated public policy, then they have only them selves to blame.
What with the idiot Climate Commission, and the dual role that many of the publically funded scientist have in being advisers to WWF et al, what else can they expect
The real concern though is the damage these people have done to science in general.
DaveyMyFace – well nothing wrong with free trade despite those CO2 miles. And we cross dressers need our beauty products don’t we.
What Kerry Emmanuel has said is spot on. And friends in CSIRO have indeed been threatened in a variety of ways. Some have given up public facing positions as as result. You don’t have to attend public meetings watching people in the front row mouthing expletives to you and make throat cutting gestures. They’d be your mates would they mate? You only have to sit in an audience at a Monckton or Watts vaudeville show to hear some of the vile despicable comments. Here’s a video of a scumbag presenting a noose to a climate scientist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVFHJUYVcE I’m sure you approve. So f off.
Malcolm of real integrity Malcolm – surely you wouldn’t be suggesting the denialist blogosphere with its blatant disinformation campaign funded by nefarious sources pumping out its daily fetid serving of abuse has integrity. Ho ho ho.
Alex enjoys being personally hoodwinked – Vahrenholt and Luning – ho ho ho – its’ Xmas – what drivel – http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/response-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/
And now we’ve had no warming for 30 years – hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa – ho ho ho it’s Xmas – nutters are out and about. What’s highly psychologically disturbing is the doofuses like Alex just swallow this stuff.
And Alex does take the cake for “AGW is a hypothesis that says that increasing atmospheric CO2 (be it natural or anthropogenic CO2) will linearly produce an increase in the atmosphere’s,”
how can we put this delicately …. ummm – WRONG ! ding ding off to the rear of the class. Mate put your Mum on – maybe she can do better.
Good one Luke, NOT, but tell us about the top alarmist, con merchant scientists using data upside down to further push their fraudulent studies.
And they just keep using it this way in other studies, what pseudo science ponzi scheme liars they are.
They also carefully pre-selected dendro zeries and use dud stats so that a drunk on the dts could even produce a hockey stick.
Of course Karoly and Gergis tried the same con game but had to throw out their SH con study that also produced a fraudulent bent stick as well.
And remember the UK’s TOP scientist Phil Jones reason for refusal their temp data to Warick Hughes? He whined “that you only want to see if you find something wrong with it.” DUH yes, Geeeezzzzzz that’s exactly what science is supposed to be about you dummy.
Ah you’re just a stupid feral ranter Neville. You don’t even know what you’re reading as evidenced by your temperature question ignorance and love of stats nongs like Tisdale. Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! All you’re doing is trawling around Watts and Bolt looking for the latest disinformation pig slop to graffiti threads with. Have some decency and stop spamming threads.
At least Cohenite seriously engages the literature. You really need to tell the scientists you libel in person that they are frauds.
Anyway – the best review of the literature assembled says Mann’s is correct. So toodle pip
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1797_F1.html
http://www.pages-igbp.org/
In 2014 why don’t you turn over a new leaf and read something other than pig slop. Try some papers at source not what the op-ed told you to think.
And Hughes is a known climate establishment basher and Jones was DEAD RIGHT. Having read his blog – I can tell you it’s not about science. But overall I disagree with Jones albeit having great sympathy for his position. Sceptics aren’t interested in science – they’re interested in harassment and being a virtual denial of service attack.
Anyway trying to justice to Jen’s thread topic and not play idiots with Neville.
So should scientists advocate? It’s not simple. I suspect Debbie would like this !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CJC1phPS6IA
Should scientists advocate. Most of CSIRO and BoM’s scientists don’t publicly advocate.
‘Malcolm of real integrity Malcolm – surely you wouldn’t be suggesting the denialist blogosphere with its blatant disinformation campaign funded by nefarious sources pumping out its daily fetid serving of abuse has integrity.’
No I wasn’t ..what I was saying, which would have been obvious to most real world people, is that the way the whole exercise been planned and managed has been to manipulate public opinion and that of policy makers to produce the outcome they wanted ab initio..and the scientists are and have been completely complicit, either directly or in directly…or… they are more stupid than they otherwise appear to be.
The whole thing lacks integrity.
In any event the alarmist campaign is totally funded by the tax payers and has now been found wanting… so don’t lecture us about nefarious behaviour and disinformation. The AGW scientific fraternity are in it up to their smelly armpits.
They didn’t have to agree with IPCC protocols and the biased unscientific statement of goals ie only look for the evidence of warming that can be attributable to being human induced…forget alternatives.
They didn’t have to get into bed with the WWF, and have them along to the COP’s ARn’s etc and indeed have their glossies included in the assessments, in addition to they themselves (some) also being included as scientific advisers.
They didn’t have to accept appointments to Govt inspired Commissions et al and to then make predictions specifically designed to scare the crap out of everyone and to induce the expenditure of vast sums of money that would have been better spent elsewhere.
They didn’t have to persists with this crappy argument that PR is sacrosanct when it is flawed to hell and an unsafe and expensive way of ranking and assessing huge sums of money spent …when there are better ways of doing it. The internet is full of examples of scientific fraud and malfeasance. ( and BTW PR as practiced today is vastly different to that of 100years ago when we stood on the shoulders of giants).
As for your pathetic claim that rational sceptics are themselves too scared to debate in public forum the issue of AGW, from what I observe is that every time that has happened the alarmists have taken a beating…one such forum includes that of public opinion either in elections or on blogs ..in addition to the publishing of papers and formal debates …which if course you and your bevy of bag carriers would deride as not being members of their club.
The only debates they win are the ones between themselves… and I believe there is a name for that.
“Should scientists advocate. Most of CSIRO and BoM’s scientists don’t publicly advocate.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-scientists-attack-david-murray-for-serious-slur-20131101-2wqcc.html
And who can forget good old Clive Spash who advocated very mildly but in a way contrary to the prevailing mantras of Rudd. And Bob Carter and Salby.
There are plenty of scientists advocating and getting away with it as long as they are advocating in favour of AGW: Steffen, Karoly, the whole CC.
In the meantime, Luke trawls around real climate science sites like SkepticalScience, researching for his new soon to be published paper (only one of many from this climate science genius).
Word is that will Luke has laid out a plan to stop C02 and save the planet. Luke is in direct contact with the Chinese, they have recognised his genius and have agreed to stop emitting CO2 based on the links he provides as evidence. Well done Luke.
As Cohers often says” Luke you should read your own links.” This temp anomoly graph from your link definitely shows an equally strong ( as today) Med WP and a 300+ year LIA cold period as well.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1797_F4.html
Thay even state in their summary that there was a colder period of 300 years from 1580 to 1880 and warming started after 1880 or 133 years ago.
But it’s more of your BS anyway because there are heaps of PR studies that show a warm Minoan WP , Rom WP, Med WP and LIA studies abound for the last 100 years. And of course the Holocene started with the much warmer Hol optimum.
I notice Gergis gets a mention and they use Mann as well. Geeezzz what are you trying to pull?
Here’s Alley’s GISP 2 graph again showing all the warm and cold periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
Med WP is there and so is the LIA. This graph ended in 1854 according to Ole Humlum and we know from the Vinther, Jones etc study that Greenland temps in 1851 to 1860 decade were similar to 1991 to 2000 decade. Warmer still from 1920 to 1950 and 30s to 40s the warmest.
So what’s your point Luke?
Well Malcolm that’s why we should discuss whether scientists should advocate or how much. Most don’t.
Interestingly Gavin has given up on debating. Says it just adds to the noise and doesn’t communicate.
And at serious science meeting there is a diversity of opinion but little noise, no vaudeville and no fanfare. Have an issue with corporate PR – blame Harvard and the introduction of managerialisim into science. It sucks.
The bit that irks me Malcolm and I thought you would have worked it out by now is the deliberate misrepresentation. A great deal of which you see paraded out non-stop.
Neville – we’ve been over Greenland about a zillions times – WAKE UP ! (1) it’s not world (2) it doesn’t have the 20th century represented. WAKEY WAKEY ! Don’t be such a denier http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
And if YOU READ the paper – There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age WAS THEIR FINDING ! Jeez you go on mate.
In any case whether it was warmer or colder at some point in the past is largely irrelevant to where we are now with 7B humans going to 9B with heavily exploited freshwater resources, arable land, 30 days food supply and nuclear armed nation states.
sp – you really are such a shit commentator. Try to add value or be at least funny. Anyway I should be thrilled as all you are doing is being toed around in my wake and therefore not leading a discussion. nor adding any value. Even Neville tries to add value. Remember sp – I’ve been insulted by experts – and that’s not you.
Read page 342 under Twentieth-century reconstructed temperature
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/pages_2k_consortium2013.pdf
and sp maybe you should call the Chinese delegate http://www.china.org.cn/environment/warsaw_climate_talks/2013-11/21/content_30663021.htm
There is nothing in your limited response that justifies the climatariat in being sucked in and manipulated by the activists, the UN and its IPCC bureaucracy, ( in many respects they are the one and the same) and behaving like intellectual pigmies.
At every level of analysis one sees a wish for a predetermined outcome to achieve alternative ends based on a procedurally shambolic and bent assessment of some science, and where even the national funding mechanisms were biased.
The real reason they don’t debate is that they know they have been played for suckers and that their credibility in the eyes of the public is at the rubbish bin level.
Just read the submissions to the UK Parliamentary committee inquiry lodged last week.
I’m sorry Luke but this is a real mish mash, I’ve copied some of page 342 so others can check it out as well.
Antarctica wasn’t the warmest during the 20th century at all and the Arctic was warmer between 1941 to 1970 than 1971 to 2000. So little co2 increase and there is more warming in the earlier 20th century? So why isn’t ’71 to 2000 warmer? Rather stuffs up your argument.
The average of the temp increase for 20th century was 0.4c increase above the preceeding 500 years or about the year 1500. Geeezzz that’s massive NOT. But NH was 0.5c warmer and SH was about 0.2c warmer. South America temps just as high in Med WP period as today.
I’ve gotta go but please read on, I just don’t see your point.
P.S —Antarctica was warmer for 1109 years than 1971- 2000, from the year 141 to year 1250.
Twentieth-century reconstructed temperature
The twentieth century ranked as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica, where the large thermal inertia of the surrounding ocean may dampen warming28. Excluding Antarctica, the twentieth-century average temperature among the six regions was about 0.4 °C higher than the averaged temperatures of the preceding five centuries (Supplementary Table S3 lists centennial temperature differences based on the PAGES 2k and alternative reconstructions). Compared with the preceding five centuries, twentieth-century warming in the four Northern Hemisphere regions was, on average, about twice that of the more strongly ocean-dominated regions of Australasia and South America (about 0.5 °C compared with 0.2 °C), with the greatest differences at northern high latitudes. Twentieth-century warming in the Arctic (0.9 °C) was about three times that of the average of the other five non-polar regions.
Our best estimate of reconstructed temperature for ad 1971–2000 can be compared with all other consecutive 30-year periods within each regional reconstruction. In Asia and Australasia, reconstructed temperature was higher during 1971–2000 than any other 30-year period. The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century, although warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000 according to our reconstruction. In South America, the ad 1971–2000 reconstructed temperature was similar to the record maximum in ad 1251–1280. In North America, the reconstructed temperature for the 1971–2000 interval does not include the warm decades since 1980, and therefore underestimates the actual temperature for that interval. In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in ad 741–770, and the interval from ad 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000. Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as ad 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000. These interpretations are generally supported by the relative magnitude of recent warming in the alternative reconstructions (Supplementary Fig. S4 and Database S2).
Each individual proxy record contributing to the regional reconstructions was analysed to evaluate whether the values during 1971–2000 indicate higher temperatures than for any other 30-year period (Fig. 4d,e), independent of the procedures used for calibrating the temperature reconstructions. According to this analysis, of the 323 individual proxy records that extend to ad 1500, more sites seem warmest during 1971–2000 than during any other 30-year period, both in terms of the total number of sites and their proportion in each region. Similarly, of the 52 individual records that extend to ad 500, more sites (and a higher proportion) seem warmest during the twentieth century than during any other century. The fraction of individual records that indicates the highest temperatures during 1971–2000 decreases with increasing record length, consistent with an overall cooling trend over the past two millennia (Figs 2 and 3).
Significant cooling tr
endNon-significant cooling trendNon-significant warming trendSignificant warming trend1.00.80.60.40.20.0140080012001600Fraction of recordsStart of interval (year , all ending at 1900)5000Number of records
Figure 3 | Summary of long-term trends in individual site-level proxy records. Sign (positive or negative) and statistical significance of the slope of least-squares linear regression through each site-level proxy record within the PAGES 2k data set. The fraction of records that exhibit significant (P < 0.05) or non-significant cooling trends was evaluated for records extending back different lengths in 30-year steps. The longer the record, the more likely it is to exhibit a significant long-term cooling trend. For illustration purposes, the fraction of positive trends with magnitude smaller (light red) and larger (red) than the one-sided P = 0.05 level is also included.
PROGRESS ARTICLE NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1797
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | MAY 2013 | http://www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 343
–8
–4 0 Standardized (SD) –5 0 5 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 –1.5 –0.5 0.5 1.5 0 4 8 Count 0 200 400 600 800 1000 12001400 1600 1800 2000 Temp. anomaly (°C) ha c e d n = 32300.10.20.3Regional proportion of recordsn = 52Climate forcingsg f–0.6 –0.2 0.2 b 00.10.20.3–0.4 –0.2 0.2 –2 0 2 4 Temperature (°C) 0.0 Forcing (W m–2) Forcing (W m–2) Insolation (W m–2) Year Mann EIV Ljungqvist Moberg Hegerl ArcticEuropeAsiaN. AmericaS. AmericaAustralasiaAntarcticSolar-strong (Shapiro) Solar-weak (Vieira) Volcanic (Gao) Volcanic (Crowley) Greenhouse gases65° S Jan 15° S Jul 65° N Jul 15° N Jul
Figure 4 | Composite temperature reconstructions with climate forcings and previous hemisphere-scale reconstructions. a, Previously published Northern Hemisphere 30-year-mean temperature reconstructions relative to the 1961–1990 reference period5,43–54. b, Standardized 30-year-mean temperatures averaged across all seven continental-scale regions. Blue symbols are area-weighted averages using domain areas listed in Table 1, and bars show twenty-fifth and seventy-fifth unweighted percentiles to illustrate the variability among regions; open black boxes are unweighted medians. The red line is the 30-year-average annual global temperature from the HadCRUT4 (ref. 29) instrumental time series relative to 1961–1990, and scaled visually to match the standardized values over the instrumental period. c, Running count of the number of regional reconstructions. d, For each 30-year period since ad 1500, the proportion of individual proxy records within each region that indicate the highest temperature during that 30-year period. e, For each century since ad 500, the proportion of individual proxy records within each region that indicate the highest temperature during that century. f, Long-term volcanic forcing from ref. 16 (black curve; spikes beyond –8 Wm–2 are truncated), and solar forcing from ref. 17 (red curve). g, Radiative forcings relative to ad 2000 smoothed using 30-year averages from ref. 31, including: two estimates of volcanic forcing46,47; two estimates of solar forcing that span the range from strong48 to weak49; and well-mixed greenhouse gases relative to ad 850. h, Change in summer (July and January) insolation at 65° N/S and 15°N/S latitudes relative to ad 2000 from ref. 50. Vertical red bands indicate volcanic-solar downturns as defined in Methods.
NATURE GEOSCIENCE
This minister declares that scepticism is a disorder. But he’s also an ABC producer, so goes with the job.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/minister_and_abc_producer_declares_scepticsm_a_disorder/#commentsmore
“their credibility in the eyes of the public is at the rubbish bin level.” ho ho ho – says you.
So science is now a popularity contest? Flannery got a million bucks in small denomination donations in a few days. So Malcolm there’s a whole bunch of people out there that beg to disagree and are awake to the shills, fifth columnists and the disenchanted who are the faux sceptics.
Neville at some point you may become a systems thinker and learn that there are a number of forcings that drive climate – solar primarily (and without which there would be no greenhouse effect), greenhouse gases, volcanic, aerosols, land use change (albedo), stratospheric ozone depletion, feedbacks with clouds, the biosphere and cryosphere with wiggles induced by ENSO, AMO, AO, SAM, IOD and PDO etc. And a dose of good old chaos – albeit bounded. And the net result of a radiative imbalance is that circulation systems will reorganise themselves and some regions may even end up cooler in the shorter term.
“Flannery got a million bucks in small denomination donations in a few days.”
And that is why sceptics are going to lose. At least in the West.
Ah come on – you said you guys spent $300K on some analysis recently.
And how about http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/21/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/
but you should be happy with http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/23/the-british-political-establishment-seems-to-be-moving-more-towards-climate-change-denial-which-is-worse-than-the-previous-stance-of-acknowledging-the-problem-while-doing-virtually-nothing-to-address/
Surely Cohenite you’d have to take some of the blame yourself. There’d be 3 groups – the biggest which is don’t care I’m down at the shops/beach/cricket – then the two opposing camps who totally distrust each other.
Now objectively have a look at the general class of user comment on Watts or Nova and then compare with RealClimate. I know which one spits more (and I said more) venom.
So unless you’re good enough (and you might be be) to sack 90% of CSIRO and BoM and hypnotise anyone left you could still have a problem.
As I have said before – it’s the tone – it’s Alan Jones redneck or Bolts biffo. Grates with anyone intelligent.
Back to Jen’s topic – would Barry Marshall have conducted himself as you lot have?
Now Lukey you’re starting to make sense and because it’s Xmas I’ll even agree AGAIN that there should be some warming from extra co2 in the system.
But how much warming is the biggy. I don’t know because I’m only a layman with just a few years of education, but I can still read and understand a fair bit of the info in front of me.
And I can look at your study above and pick out the bones and draw my own conclusions as well. I see they reference Gergis and Mann so I’m still very doubtful about some of their conclusions. I just wish Cohers could run his eye over my last post and the highlighted text I provided and give his insight.
Barry Marshall’s doesn’t have to battle an whole army of well funded scientists and policy wonkers under the thrall of the UN/IPCC and the WWF, trying to destroy our economy by making us non competitive….so that we affect the global temperature by zero degrees. (Perfectly reasonable logic of course.)
What Barry M is doing is saving lives, and making life better for all… not destroying jobs and incomes based upon a fraudulent an incompetent process and by so doing making life worse for those at the lower end. They are as different as chalk and cheese
I would have though even a tone deaf nob head like you could have worked that out.
You’re just ranting Malcolm. Every single thing you said could be inverted back on you. Fraudulent, incompetent – surely you’re talking about the sceptic movement. Even you should have worked that out.
Do you really think your average climate scientist wants to destroy our economy. I just laugh in your face.
So what sort of process would you suggest (none I know) but a rag tag bunch of incompetents with 50 different ideas and no domain expertise?
Barry Marshall had to battle a whole consensus of practice and a pharmaceutical industry.
AND the way its done is to enter the front door – not carry on like a bunch of sneaks and crooks.
What the do you think a serial exaggerator and failed predictor like Flannery was doing by making the claims that he did. He is a scientist and he was making statement that are and are damaging to our best interests and wrong and knowingly so, when he made them.. either that or he is incompetent.
What do you think the flawed IPCC processes do, by being slavishly followed by the acolytes and inmates of the climatariat to produce a political outcome acceptable to the WWF and greeny fringe dwellers and UN bureaucrats
Many do try to go in through the front door as do many.. by tacking this flawed and incompetent process by using THEIR own resources ..not that of tax payers as the climatariat. That the big difference
If they want exclusive access to the public shilling for AGW they would do better to see that its is spent wisely, and defendably, and that does not appear to always be the case. Hence the public angst when they are behaving like dills
Barry M did have to fight a whole battery of negatives but that says something again about the PR process as well.
As for referring to sceptics as” sneaks and crooks”, well that also cuts both ways as well.
The vast army of alarmist climatariat is full of people who fit that bill…climategates ring any bells
” to produce a political outcome acceptable to the WWF and greeny fringe dwellers and UN bureaucrats”
more sooking. You don’t even read what’s been written. Flawed IPCC process – what bulldust- I’d like to see you run an international process that large and complex. More sooking.
I can assemble a whole raft of sceptic incompetence and sneakiness if you like. You’re just having a great big unsubstantiated whinge and I spit on your analysis.
Climategate = boredom gate – you found a big fat zero. Desperate stuff by fifth columnist anti-science arseholes.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360
I am proud to be in excellent company when a real top gun scientist of this calibre finds the “IPCC process deeply unscientific” …his words.
You, OTOH have just revealed yet again what foul mouthed grub you really are…and why debating you and your ilk would be a piece of cake … if one was inclined to stoop so low.
Have a nice Xmas
Don’t worry about him Malcolm , he can’t even get his story straight. Like this dope.
Merry Xmas from that giant Hippo Al Gore.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/merry-griftmas-from-al-gore/#more-99853
Give to this loon and he’ll match it from some other secretive source. Unbelievable and just to tell more lies about CAGW and OECD mitigation.
ALARMISM??? FAILED PREDICTION …. AND MORE TO COME
“In 2008, you might recall, the former vice president and current global warming alarmist in chief said, “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.””
Five Years Since Hansen Announced We Were Toast – Arctic Ice Free In 2013:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/five-years-since-hansen-announced-we-were-toast-arctic-ice-free-in-2013/
“The arrogance required to boldly predict anything that could happen on this planet — whether it’s in five years, 20 years, 100 years or more — is laughable.
The alarmism is less about “preventing” climate change than it is about raising gobs of money, which countless groups then use to push their agenda: to ratchet back first-world economies and living standards by making energy much more expensive and much less available.”
lol.
Reading this after a few days, it is clear the true believers depend on name calling, deception and falsely accusing everyone who writes articles they disagree with to be in a conspiracy: IOW they have nothing.
When asked for specifics to support their positions, all they do is repeat their accusations and demonstrate more magical thinking.
Jen has it right: AGW belief is pernicious and thought ending, not thought expanding. AGW is a dysfunctional social movement. It uses a veneer of sciencey talk to cover its believer’s need for social capital and position. AGW believers produce little or nothing that adds to human welfare, improves the environment, or solves the problem they claim to be obsessed with. AGW is about gaining power over people. IF it was about science, they would modify their claims and theories when the evidence dictates or predictions fail. Instead we get the drivel from believers we see here, where they reject the evidence, forget the predictions, and blame the critics.
Luke:
You say:
“You only have to sit in an audience at a Monckton or Watts vaudeville show to hear some of the vile despicable comments.”
And YOU and the GREEN screaming fans are as follows.
Arnie: “Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour”
James Hansen: “CEO’s of Oil companies be put on trial for crimes against humanity”
George Monbiot: “Every death as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline CEO should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”
Jill Singer:“I propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.”
Richard Glover:“It’s time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
Richard Parncutt:”I’m going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.”
And you Luke promote this kind of garbage on you flying visits. Very bad Luke regardless of your hair brand selection.
Goodbye Luke, hypocrite and CAGW religious follower.
And so DaveMyFace accuses me of being a hypocrite and CAGW religious follower. So his spiteful little tirade he has demonstrated why he’s a card carrying member of the denialist filth.
A classic case of verballing ascribing the opinions written to me and that I promote them. DaveMyFace could have had a great job in the 3rd Reich in the propaganda units and shows exactly why deniers can’t be trusted.
I picked two at random Monbiot and Glover and looked up the original articles.
Well DMF – you are such a dreadful liar aren’t you.
Anyway being in the audience at a denierfest makes the comments above pale into insignificance. How mild.
Seek professional medical help DMF. Do it soon.
sp is as bad with his sleazy little snippet again removed by from the article. Don’t trust deniers. But sp who we know doesn’t get time and space – is it 2018 yet? Oh that’s right it ain’t. On your bike sport.
And Malcolm tries the VIP method – did you read it Malcolm. What an amateurish high school essay – what a laugh – let’s pick 2 ”
• that they wrongly assume the whole temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution to have resulted from human co, emissions” ERRR NO ! ding ding try again
” that they assume a sensitivity of 3° for a doubling of CO, above pre-industrial values while at most 1o is observed” hmmm NO !! ding ding – one more
“that they ignore the incidence of the solar cycle on the cosmic ray flux and the resulting formation of clouds” WELL one could include proven nonsense – but why would you?
Malcolm you are a just a crank. But use some of the $1 billion in slush funds to employ DMF as the head of propaganda.
So with friends this who needs enemies as Jen ponders how to overthrow AGW as a science paradigm. Engaging the services of bunk artists like DMF, Mally and sp sauce is unlikely to help.
Luke’s replies are mostly insulting and/or just a string of scientific inanities. Replying to one of my posts he managed to prove that he is either unable to understand or deliberately interpreted wrongly what I wrote, namely:
>>After 30 years of measurements it has resulted that while the linear CO2 increase kept steady, the global average temperature remained in as stasis for longer than it increased.>>
for which Luke answered that I wrote that we had 30 years of no warming, which is neither what I wrote nor what I meant.
We are now in 18th year of The Pause which is longer than the warming that commenced around 1980. So, since 1980 we had 15 years of warming and 17 years of stasis.
That alone destroys the AGW hypothesis
Jennifer, this is why I’m an optimist, even though I hate the cold:
http://www.cdapress.com/column…
German scientists predict a century of global cooling
Two German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say that “two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century.”
They added, “by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in 1870.”
These researchers used historical data detailing temperatures as well as cave stalagmites to show a recurring 200-year solar cycle called the DeVries Cycle.
They likewise featured into their studies a well-established 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle of warming that has occurred since 1870 and will soon shift to a much cooler cycle of sea-surface temperatures, in other words, more chilly ‘La Ninas’ and less warm ‘El Ninos.’
>>>>>>>>>>>
The link in my comment does not work, try this:
http://www.cdapress.com/columns/cliff_harris/article_b985f8a5-6870-5b84-8aad-0be108c60e69.html?mode=jqm
Alex is now into the great sceptic scoundrel syndrome – solar cycles – what rubbish. Stick it on your fridge with all the other such rubbish so you can check that it’s not working.
Pity there is no solar output explanation for the late 20th century warming.
Alex you said “AGW is a hypothesis that says that increasing atmospheric CO2 (be it natural or anthropogenic CO2) will linearly produce an increase in the atmosphere’s, hydrosphere’s and cryosphere’s total energy which would result in an increased temperature in all three -spheres.”
WRONG ! Clueless – clueless. Check a bunch of GCM instantiations and report back.
Alex – this is an evidence based blog. Drivel is drivel.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
So the grub pulls his usual stunts by trying to defend the high ground by ignoring evidence…the very stuff he claims this blog is about.
This very eminent scientist (see the refce site above) is calling the SPM for what it is, deeply unscientific and disturbing, and gives his reasons. But knowing the difficulty the grub has with plain English I wont worry him with those reasons ..they are over his head anyway
Suffice to say that for a very long time very eminent statisticians have been saying the same thing, calling for properly qualified and skilled stats people to be included…and proper defendable and processes and practices to be in installed.
Of course people like the grub would not comprehend the need for the IPCC to be credible, and be above reproach.
The UK Parliamentary inquiry is now gathering the evidence to see where the balance of judgement really lies ..and to answer the main question has the IPCC done a proper job of work that can relied upon for the expenditure of vast sums of money, the ruination of peoples lives and the transfer of wealth to the non deserving, and manipulators like Gore et al.
It is clear that many other scientists and advisers say that the case has NOT been made and the processes are not to be relied upon, and the scientific standards are poor.
The alarmists know this, and have to use all methods of deception and deceit and hence the involvement of WWF and the equally incompetent and manipulative UN, as well as the blatantly obvious conflicts of interest for those involved.
Cue another spray of bellicosity and ignorance.
For me, form now on I will keep my own counsel , and treat it as yet another example of how public officials, and the AGW scientific elites (most, but not all) are not acting in our best interests…and I am not alone in holding this view, as the various blogs and the level of general public disquiet amply demonstrates. They have lost me and many people like me with lots of quals and many life experiences in the real world.
Good Bye
Grub. hmmmmm “The grub” and “Good bye”. Pity the eminent scientist isn’t eminent in the field and wrong.
I wonder when Mal last read a science paper. Might it be “never”. Blog slops and op-eds are easier.
Hard to argue against the following, no matter what field of science one is in:
“The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
Mal and sp, you know that if it doesn’t go through the Phil and Jimmy filter [AKA peer review] it just isn’t science.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/indisputable-that-jim-and-phil-are-cheating/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/nasa-fixed-that-nasty-1930s-arctic-warmth/
It’s wot Luke’s mates in the BoM specialise in.
Spangled if it didn’t matter it would still be criminal behavior but the trouble is their BS and lies adds up to one of the greatest frauds of all time, costing world govts ( now) nearly one billion $ a day. And many billions $ for OZ taxpayers p.a for ZIP change to weather/climate/temp in twenty , fifty or 100 years or 1,000 years,
But give Luke some credit, he does show some sanity occasionally. When I challenged him about that confusing messy study that was supposed to clarify things he said this———-
“Neville at some point you may become a systems thinker and learn that there are a number of forcings that drive climate – solar primarily (and without which there would be no greenhouse effect), greenhouse gases, volcanic, aerosols, land use change (albedo), stratospheric ozone depletion, feedbacks with clouds, the biosphere and cryosphere with wiggles induced by ENSO, AMO, AO, SAM, IOD and PDO etc. And a dose of good old chaos – albeit bounded. And the net result of a radiative imbalance is that circulation systems will reorganise themselves and some regions may even end up cooler in the shorter term.”
Amazing after all his stupid abuse over the years he can actually write something like the above.
The climate is very difficult to understand because it is impacted by so many variables. For e.g cloud variability ( just one variable of probably hundreds) certainly has a large influence on every 30 years of weather we call climate yet we still know so little about those changes.
sp = the way the IPCC deals with uncertainties. Well goobers like sp wouldn’t have read the section that in details describes all this. So would you like the IPCC to present some analysis and make no comment as to how certain their opinion is? They came up with the uncertainty stuff as a result of criticism – now they being criticised for doing so. sp can only cut and paste – unable to think. Never checks source. Quotes crap.
Steve Goddard’s just a think tank shonk. Most of his total junk is fabricated. Why would you even bother quoting a known disinformation source. Today’s example – quoting some journo as source – only a goose like Spangled would think it meant anything.
“The climate is very difficult to understand because it is impacted by so many variables.” well that’s why we have scientists Neville. And science. That’s not fraud. Not making up crap. Having yourself on with curve fitting – see solar cycles drivel.
And it will be billions for Aussie tax payers if the Hadley cell keeps widening and it plays out. You have assumed the costs side of the ledger is zero, that we have no obligation to do anything as our slice of the emissions pie is small, and that there are no technological solutions e.g. new nuclear. You’re only a 1000% out in your selfish personal micro-calculation. BTW I’ve been penning comments like you quoted from me for years. Climate may have been always changing and most of the species that have been alive in the Earth’s history are not here as a result; and not with 7B humans going to 9B with complete exploitation of arable land and freshwater resources.
More on clouds and solar winds etc. And would the solar wind be the same in the last 30 years as the previous 30 years?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/26/new-paper-clouds-blown-by-the-solar-wind/#more-99909
So you think the IPCC dealt with uncertainties in a scientific manner? Is that how you calculate probability – you ring a few mates until you arrive at a consensus?
Funny thing Luke – when you have nothing sensible to say you revert to childish outbursts like “if the Hadley cell keeps widening and it plays out ….. especially with 7B humans going to 9B with complete exploitation of arable land and freshwater resources”
The Chinese are worried about Australia and they are not looking to Australia for leadership, they are burning Aussie coal, and the annual increase in Chinese CO2 is about equal to Australia’s total emissions.
Quit your whining!
So you think the IPCC dealt with uncertainties in a scientific manner? Is that how you calculate probability – you ring a few mates until you arrive at a consensus?
Funny thing Luke – when you have nothing sensible to say you revert to childish outbursts like “if the Hadley cell keeps widening and it plays out ….. especially with 7B humans going to 9B with complete exploitation of arable land and freshwater resources”
The Chinese are not worried about Australia and they are not looking to Australia for leadership, they are burning Aussie coal, and the annual increase in Chinese CO2 is about equal to Australia’s total emissions.
Quit your whining and stp wasting peoples time!
More on the factual story of the cruise ship stuck in the ice in Antarctica.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/26/so-much-ice-in-antarctica-that-a-research-vessel-gets-stuck-in-summer/
A film maker and crew have gone there to investigate CAGW and Antarctica’s
role. But ice extent is way, way, way above recent historical levels and they’ve now become stuck in ice during the summertime.
Looks like heaps of taxpayer’s money could be involved as well. Well who woulda thought?
Well sp – try switching the neurons on:
(1) is the Hadley cell widening and consequences are ….
(2) is food supply an ongoing global challenge
(3) is the level of exploitation of freshwater resources and arable land high
hmmmm?
I dunno says sp coz I don’t think much. And maybe the Chinese know something you don’t http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/nov/21/china-air-pollution-carbon-emissions funny that !
sp – stop your fraudulent denialist anti-science lying and wasting people’s time. Try thinking.
“Sums up everything that is so pathetic about Australia. But the anti science and anti future meme is not just a problem of the right wing. The Greens are also prone to some of the worst anti science thinking when it play to their very narrow ideological framework.”
“Rupert, Clive and Campbell in the Arkansas of the world”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/11/01/rundle-rupert-clive-and-campbell-in-the-arkansas-of-the-world/?wpmp_tp=0
You should read what you post Luke.
Because China say they will do something does not mean they will.
The Chinese promise, but don’t deliver – I can hear them in China: ‘With stupid round eyes like Luke Supercell on our side we can sell the west any old pile of excuses’
“China’s slower growth of emission is linked to its attempts to improve its air pollution that rather than being linked to international efforts to improve climate change. However, the source of both its hazardous air pollution and its CO2 emissions is its reliance on coal to fuel its massive economic growth. So efforts to improve its air quality will also bring reductions in CO2 emissions.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/nov/21/china-air-pollution-carbon-emissions
BTW Luke – you are ‘quoting some journo as source’ – it seems this is a bad thing for Spanled to do @ 8.45, but OK for you to do @ 9.58.
Hypocrite.
Yes Neville, Luke does sometimes stumble over the truth but he usually manages to pick himself up and carry on as though nothing had happened.
Synthesising the facts again, hey Luke?
Y’know, like Steve Goddard always embarrassingly points out to you warmers.
AWA those fascinating old newspaper clippings that would inspire any reasonable person to indulge in at least SOME scepticism.
Ya gotta admit too, it IS interesting how, out of all those old adjustments back to 1934, the only way they ever adjusted was DOWN.
Luke that Guardian article is about as silly as it gets. China couldn’t give a stuff about co2 emissions but they definitely want to clean up their nasty smog.
So they just build new CLEAN coal fired stns with scrubbers etc and close down the old DIRTY stns and eventually the smog problem will be a thing of the past.
And like India thay are building new nukes as well, but not enough to have any impact on climate or temp for hundreds of years.
Wind and solar are as big a joke in China as they are in OECD countries. Just look at the 100’s of billions wasted on solar and wind in Germany over decades and now they’re back building new C/Fired stns again.
The energy supplied and climate impacts from S&W adds up to SFA. But they are the biggest money and time wasters in recent history.And all for ZIP.
Seasons greetings to all.
Hope everyone enjoyed a break?
Luke,
Just catching up and find these from you:
“Perhaps scientists shouldn’t advocate at all – that would please Debs but thwart Jen who clearly believes in advocacy.”
“So should scientists advocate? It’s not simple. I suspect Debbie would like this !”
“Should scientists advocate. Most of CSIRO and BoM’s scientists don’t publicly advocate.”
Your suspicions are partly correct but your focus is not correct.
Most of the scientists you are talking about are employees and expected to fulfil their job descriptions just like any other employee.
I’m questioning the JOB DESCRIPTIONS and the entrenched CULTURE. . . NOT (!) the actual scientists or science. They are just people like the rest of us. Some of them are nice, some of them aren’t, some of them like their job, some of them don’t, some of them are highly competent and some of them are barely so. . . and so on and so on.
Here is the link that Jen has used very recently which indicates part of what she has pointed out.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/IPA-RMC-03Reviewr.pdf
So your questions and suspicions re my opinion have some validity but once again your FOCUS is off.
Despite your constant accusations otherwise. . . I have never attacked science and scientists per se. . . Your question : Should scientists advocate? . . . is really a question about what their employers are asking them to do. . .and/or. . .the process they are forced to undertake to obtain funding and recognition. . . and/or. . . the political climate they are operating within.
Anyway. . .Happy New Year to all.
I feel like saying to the alarmists that they all sound like they need a break. 2014 will roll through despite us mere mortals and even though we’re not perfect. . .its really not all bad.
“What about these Chinese schemes we hear so much about on the ABC? There are seven
designated pilot projects in China. One – that’s right, one – has begun operation. That is in
Shenzhen. So far all the permits are given away for free. It has had no impact at all on carbon
emissions.
The Chinese government has indicated it may look at a national scheme for the five-year plan
from 2016. This is at most speculative, and there are a million ways it could be completely
ineffective, which is almost certainly the result. China is by far the world’s biggest polluter.
Its per capita emissions are now comparable with Europe’s. It has some plans to reduce
carbon intensity, that is, the amount of carbon per unit of production, but no plans to reduce
the absolute size of its emissions.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Sheridan-The-great-climate-fiction.pdf
Spangled – Goddard has proved to be one of the denialosphere’s most active disinformation sources. It’s an ongoing giggle-a-thon for the clueless. Glad you enjoy being suckered each day.
sp’s as bad now quoting Lavoisier – the cess pit of old codger Aussie denialism. Ho ho ho it’s Xmas. And ding a ling a ling.
So Debs – let’s get to it – you previously went feral on the issue of accountability. BoM and CSIRO aren’t free range uni chooks. Definitely not your free range regional uni types. Presumably you’d expect their scientists to be accountable to management – you wouldn’t want them marauding all over the place doing whatever they felt like – or would you?
So what are they to do Debs? Over to you for some rootin’ tootin’ MBA wisdom ! Map us a path forwards… (for a change)
The Chinese are most serious about reducing emissions intensity http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China–Nuclear-Power/
I guess Neville and sp sauce would prefer unrestrained MAXIMUM CO2 growth being the risky reckless sort of chappies they are. Neville would like to get as much up there as possible – no limits – burn everything !
I see Lukes back to his true delusional best silly joker mode. As long as it’s stupid and makes zip sense Lukey loves it.
He recently implied there was no strong LIA and Med WP, but even the study he linked to seems to partly refute his assertions.
But even true believers agree that the LIA was a period of near max glacial advance for the holocene.
His study tells us the planet has warmed about 0.4c in the last 500 years. That’s 0.2c in the SH and about 0.5 in the NH and the SH sites show more warming earlier in the 20th century compared to later. What a joker.
The stranded Antarctic cruise ship will have to wait a while longer before it can be rescued. It’s still stuck in the ice during the SH summer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-28/chinese-icebreaker-unable-to-reach-stuck-ship/5176938?section=justin
According to Luke’s study there was an earlier period of 1100+ years ( approx 200 AD to 1250 AD) when that cruise ship wouldn’t have had a problem at this time of year. You see it was warmer during that long period than it is today. Geeezzzzz it couldn’t be natural climate variation, surely?
Butv ya gotta laugh because the scientific team on the stuck ship are carrying out research on Mawson’s records so they can compare it to our global warming. Gawwwwddd isn’t it delicious, the Gore effect continues to make fools of them once again.
Luke,
It’s quite simple really.
They need to do their JOB (!). . .just like any other employee. They need to stick to their CORE BUSINESS. . .just like any other service industry.
If they are not performing. . .or under performing. . .they need to be accountable for that.
How you could possibly interpret that I said they should be free ranging is simply amazing!
You asked at least 3 times about scientists ‘advocating’ and implied that you knew what I would think.
Obviously. . . very obviously. . .you simply have no idea.
The people we are talking about are PUBLIC SERVANTS primarily. There is nothing peculiarly special about them.
Those who work in NRM. . .including CSIRO and BoM. . .have somewhat lost their way. . .NOT(!) because they are bad people. . .but rather the CULTURE and the MINDSET of the system they work in.
The PUBLIC they should be working with (ie those who work in the REAL environment/weather/climate and who are in fact their PAYING CUSTOMERS) have become mightily unimpressed with the performance and the delivery of services.
IMHO. . .A large part of the problem is that a lot of these people have never lived and worked in the REAL environment or with the PUBLIC who work there . . .and therefore they incorrectly ASSUME that they know what is required. . .and when they are QUESTIONED . . .and asked rather simple questions about basic SERVICES. . .they go into defence mode and rabbit on about ‘higher level principles’ and then complain that these REAL people are ungrateful and STUPID. It even leads them to say INCREDIBLY, MINDLESSLY, MORONICALLY STUPID things like: “this would be a great job if it wasn’t for the clients” . . .or variations of the same.
The saddest part is many of these good people who work in NRM have been turned into something like policeman. . .rather than people that we can work with. . .because of NRM legislation and attendant rules and regs.
So once again. . .it’s the FOCUS that has gone astray. . .not the profession of science.
Luke, you warmers really hate poor old frugal living, bike riding Steve Goddard.
He practices what you warmers preach [but don’t practice] and he comes up with some great one liners every day that show you up for the clowns you are.
His great selection of historic paper clippings confirms the stupidity.
But all you can do in reply is tackle the old man with an axe and ignore his arguments.
And today’s is the usual classic:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/global-warming-forcing-climate-refugees-north/
And this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/it-turns-out-that-antarctic-sea-ice-is-not-frozen/
etc, etc, etc.
The Antarctic beatup is simply laughable and desperate – simply wind and bad luck. That area is infamous for that. Sceptics just trying to beat off the growing realisation of a very warm year (oh dear)
Goddard’s just rubbish for the gullible and time wasters. If you want to be conned and have incorrect and out of context crap polluting your mind help yourself. Anyway the guy doesn’t really exist – it’s a think tank front with the odd billion to throw at non-science denier propaganda.
Debs – so no answers only sooking.
You’ve assumed it all about you. It isn’t. More culture of entitlement stuff.
But anyway – do you know what you want – so under the sceptics like Kininmonth you had access to bugger all. You now under D Jones more access to more information than ever before and you’re not happy. Maybe put Kininmonth back in. Good old days.
Anyway who would know what you’d want Debs – if I was a visitor from BoM I’d chew my arm off in frustration talking to you. You could never get to any specifics with Bazza and myself on seasonal forecasting. You clearly have no idea what you’re reading. You don’t have any data. And you’re only interested in the broad policy social implications. WELL ISN’T THAT HELPFUL ! (not)
Go Davey http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20131220-2zqpf.html At least he’s a real person unlike Goddard.
Luke, you know as much about Steve Goddard as you do about AGW.
Yep. . . clueless!
Talking about chewing your arm off! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 LOL!
Hilarious!
“At least he’s a real person unlike Goddard.”
You mean he believes all that BoM crap where they remove all the old records and now place thermometers in the hottest places they can find.
Australia’s 20 hottest months since ’78 from a non-adjusted POV:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_23-nov-04-19-58.jpg
Australia’s temps since ’78 from a non-adjusted POV:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_18-nov-04-19-00.jpg
Similar to NZ thanks to BoM and NIWA:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2013/11/epic-fail-niwa-your-methods-are-a-global-secret/
Debs has no answers.
Spangled goes on to quote denier crap. Goddard’s just a front – don’t be sucked into the paid for denialosphere. Having been slapped down by the court deniers keep trying.
The “lack of warming” in NZ by deniers probably explains all the NZ glacier melt. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7279904/Our-frozen-assets-slowly-melting-away
From Luke’s link above:
“The paper, published in Global and Planetary Change, an international journal, in April, shows New Zealand’s glaciers have lost 15 per cent of ice mass in the 32 years to 2008, a massive 8.4km3.
However, the rate of loss was less dramatic than the previous 100 years, when ice mass almost halved.”
So, from about 1876 to 1976 the “ice mass almost halved” – I wonder what could have caused that considering it agreed AGW CO2 (if you believe such rubbish) did not have impact until about 1976?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7279904/Our-frozen-assets-slowly-melting-away
Can we try this way Luke:
Whose JOB (as in employment description) is it to understand and deliver what the public needs from the public service?
There are PLENTY of answers. . .but they are not forthcoming until people learn how to ask the right questions. . . and when there is a relationship based on trust and respect.
There are also PLENTY of questions. . .but in my last 3 experiences with BoM and CSIRO . . .they were clearly unable to answer the most important ones. . .nor were they even interested in dealing with 3 of their own PP introductory questions:
* who would need to use this information?
*why would they want to use this information?
*how would they like this information presented?
I’m surprised that you seem to have interpreted that there are complaints about the lack of data… where did you get that idea from Luke? I certainly do not think that.
That is not the problem.
Thinking you know the answers before you even ask the questions and repeatedly failing to answer questions from your clientele and even failing to answer your own POSTED UP, power point questions is a recipe for a MASSIVE communication blockage. . .and developing mistrust.
If Public Servants feel like they need to chew their arms off when they come out and talk to people like me. . .then maybe. . .just maybe. . . they might be in the wrong job?
To sook and pretend that we don’t know what we expect and that we’re ungrateful or. . .as you put it. . .
” You could never get to any specifics with Bazza and myself on seasonal forecasting. You clearly have no idea what you’re reading. You don’t have any data. And you’re only interested in the broad policy social implications.”
Is just plain sooking and pretence and shows NO real inclination to improve the OBVIOUS problem that has developed.
Maybe. . .just maybe. . .you asked a question with a predetermined answer. . .and then reacted poorly when you didn’t receive the expected answer?
IMHO and from my personal experience it is demonstrating a problem with the JOB DESCRIPTION and therefore indicates that the FOCUS has been altered and/or side-tracked.
In any case. . .I have not and do not think the problem has anything to do with the science profession. . .and further. . . I have never and do not presently dislike scientists en masse. . .I actually have the pleasure of working with several in my business and in other roles.
The issue and the point of contention is the JOB DESCRIPTION of the PEOPLE working in the NRM space (many who are NOT scientists) and particularly at this blog in CLIMATE/WEATHER. Not the actual people themselves.
And as I have commented before. . .it ISN’T Rocket Science!!
So your thrice asked question was valid IMHO. . .but. . .you were focusing incorrectly!
A good summary by Joe Basdardi on weather updates to 21/12/13. He highlights the lies and nonsense from GISS about USA temp and how they tamper with the data.
http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-december-21-2013
He also shows some of the recovery in global sea ice cover etc.
So Debs give us some real needs and questions needing answering. floor is yours. From your perspective.
NOAA singing from the same hymn book as BoM. It seems they just can’t help it:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/noaa-says-that-they-dont-know-why-they-keep-making-the-past-colder/
Yawn … so a drongo that thinks would check what other independent temp reconstructions have come up with …. errr um …err the story. Off you go now – easy does it …
Hi Luke,
“We’ll return north – we’ve got sampling to do, continuous measurements as we go through the seawater – and then we’ll pop into Macquarie Island,” Professor Turney said.
“We hope to get some work done there and then push on to the port of Invercargill in southern New Zealand, aiming to be back home about the 4th or 5th of January.”
Professor Turney says the hundreds of thousands of measurements made by Mawson have become critical to charting signs of global warming”
And the Chinese are going to rescue them from the ICE in a helicopter.
The sheer fact that the manipulations are being done at a similar time by similar groups with a similar axe to grind doesn’t strike you as too much of a coincidence, eh ?
NAAHH !! Nuthin’ to see here.
That NIWA dodge was just slick science.
And besides, I don’t listen to old codgers that ride bikes….fossil fuel funded for sure.
No spangled they’re independent. But you wouldn’t know would you. To busy digesting non-science crap.
Ian – ships have been getting stuck in Polar ice for years. Proves nothing. Bad luck and wind shift. I assume you’d be acquainted with science showing Antarctic climate change. Of course not. Trivia is more important.
Solar Activity Not a Key Cause of Climate Change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm
The causes of climate change are unknown.
I was reading about certain yeasts and fungi the other day and the scientists kept talking about past ignorance and what they still did not know. Which is how I knew they might be scientists. Contrast that with the mockery called “climate science”. Jungle bunnies.
Luke
My perspective has not changed.
Are you perhaps ready to admit that a serious communication problem has developed?
The PS who work in the NRM space have managed to demonise and seriously tick off the people who should be working with them.
It’s not because they’re bad people.
The list of regressive & impractical rules & regs is getting longer & longer.
The pathway to delivering services is not living up to anyone’s expectations.
More rules ®s is not the answer.
Debs every time we get close to asking WHAT YOU WANT with some degree of specificity you fade away.
We’re talking climate services – WHAT DO YOU WANT !
Now no generalities or hand waving. You’re running a for real farming operation. Tell us WHAT YOU WANT.
Every time you fail to answer I can only assume you don’t actually want anything except to whinge.
Settle petal,
I am seriously not the hand waver here.
I might also point out that despite all your incessant accusations. . .I am quite busy . . . very patiently. . .explaining the rural perspective and rural/regional expectations to people who can make a difference.
Who is Luke at Jen’s blog?
Can he help?
To me. . . it looks like he is only interested in calling the rural and regional public names and sneering at them & claiming they are the cause of most of our environmental woes & have been allowed to get away with too much etc.
As far as weather services go. . . I have clearly and often pointed out why rural & regional Australians would gladly pay more. . hint. . . Jen & Abbot’s work is focusing in that area.
Unfortunately. . . these depts are littered with people like you who have already decided what they will focus on and what they think is important and amusingly. . . that we should be grateful
So Debs -AGAIN YOU CANNOT ANSWER ! Pathetic.
A waffling pitiful defence with not one specific request. Not one product. Not one analysis.
Why don’t you ask Jen and Abbot for their web site so you can access their vital new information? Notice there isn’t one?
And who is Debbie at Jen’s blog – a cheer squad member who will knee jerk reject any industry environmental issues with a flak like defence.
What haven’t I answered Luke?
Which specific question?
This one?
We’re talking climate services – WHAT DO YOU WANT!
That’s very funny….you are kidding aren’t you? Do you need me to offer a definition of “specific question” for you?
You question couldn’t be more general if you tried.
To answer that one it would take me quite a lot of time and I don’t believe you’re the right person to spend that time with. . .I’m pretty sure I have much better options.
🙂 🙂 🙂
BTW…would you seriously like to do a toe to toe on who tries the most to answer specific questions between thee and me and/or who is up front about who they are and what they do?
Seriously?
Debs so you’re totally critical of BoM/CSIRO whatever. So in terms of climate services do you have any needs that you can put into English or not? I assume from your obfuscation the answer is no.
Incidentally most producers I talk to could list about 10 specific issues without drawing breath !
Straight up. They don’t wus around like you do…. so I can only conclude you either don’t know, don’t have any needs or are disingenuous. But you sure love to whinge.
Luke,
I am so NOT(!) critical of BoM & CSIRO in terms of what they have contributed and are capable of contributing!
I have the pleasure of working with some of them in my business and also in other roles.
May I suggest you reread my comments?
Are you claiming that the system and focus of these institutions is perfect and above criticism altogether??????
But I am highly fascinated with this comment:
“Incidentally most producers I talk to could list about 10 specific issues without drawing breath !”
Please do list up those 10 specific issues that those ‘most producers you talk to’ can deliver without drawing breath and I’ll let you know if it is a similar list to ‘most producers’ in my area.
BTW you can conclude whatever you like about me. . .it is entirely irrelevant. . .If you are truly interested in talking to me I am not that difficult to find. .. you could ask Jen. . .or simply look me up.
However. . .I would always stand up for your right to maintain your anonymity and to draw your own conclusions at a blog. . .but when you draw totally unsubstantiated personal conclusions. . .it doesn’t mean anything. . .and doesn’t prove anything…and to me. . .it actually reveals more about you than anything else.
So you don’t have anything then Debs.
Don’t have anything about what Luke?
Maybe you need to learn to ask better questions?
If you think you know what the top 10 would be from ‘most producers’ that you talk to. . . then please do elaborate.
It was you Luke who claimed that you talk to producers and they have SPECIFICALLY answered ‘without drawing breath’ a list of 10. . . which then led you to make a totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated comment about me.
So let’s hear them Luke. . .what’s on that top 10 list from those ‘most producers’?
Do you think it’s a good list?
What type of producers are they?
If you genuinely want to discuss this . . .I actually am fine with your anonymity stance. . .but you need to provide some EVIDENCE for your claim about ‘most producers’. . .what are those top 10 SPECIFIC things they have listed ‘without drawing breath’?
Have to admit Debs you’d do well in a Premiers Dept – unable to give a straight answer to anything – duck and weave – try and invert the question. So I take it Debs that you do have a single specific question for our seasonal forecasters (probably except make it perfect). Whatever “it” is.
I did find a video of you though – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY
I Love Monty Python!
That one’s a ripper.
But seriously Luke. . .I am really interested in that list of 10 that you have from those ‘most producers’
Who is ducking and weaving BTW?
I’m not all that interesting in ARGUING with you for any price or time slot. . .I suggest you might need to look at those other 3 fingers of yours when you point your finger at me.
I am fascinated by that list of 10 Luke. . .you claim to know what ‘most producers’ want because those most producers that you talk to can tell you 10 things without drawing breath.
Don’t tell me I might have to conclude you have nothing or you’re simply just whinging or hand waving?
SURELY NOT?
And BTW. . .I have to repeat this . . .I am so NOT(!) critical of BoM and CSIRO in terms of what they have contributed and are capable of contributing!
My issue is where their focus has been directed and how the system has been radically centralised.
The CSIRO office in my area is nearly empty. . .it used to be full of really great people who knew how to work with the public they were servicing. . .most of them are now working OS or a few have been moved to places like Sydney or Canberra.
Perhaps when you cease making such outrageous claims about what I am or I am not or what I do or I don’t do or what I do or don’t care about. . . based on zippo evidence. . .I might be a little more inclined to answer some of your questions if I thought they were actually genuine and you were actually genuinely interested in the answers.
And from your latest comment:
Who on earth said that they expect that seasonal forecasting should be perfect?
That person needs help . . .it is far from perfect!
Debbie – I did not the say “the” list of 10 – I said a list of 10 for them personally.
So if you are serious (and you’re not) you’d be able to say here’s a few areas where I’m interested in seeing improvement in seasonal forecasting ability, technology, application, type, style, presentation or ANYTHING including the font type !
You cannot come up with a SINGLE ONE EVER ! It’s not a trick or haha gotcha. It’s simply a test of any interest.
Now given you’re critical of the research effort – I can only conclude you have no interest really or you’d be able to rattle a few personal wish lists or peeves off.
BS Luke!
Total BS!
I am so NOT(!) critical of research effort!
What’s gone wrong with your comprehension skills?
I have quite clearly stated where my criticism lies and have repeatedly said that it is not the actual researchers/scientists who are the problem. Neither is it anything to do with a lack of data.
You just don’t like to hear it and therefore resort to pretending to be selectively deaf/dense . . .with your unsubstantiated “I can only conclude” rubbish.
It’s not a good look BTW.
You did indeed state that ‘most producers’ that you talk to can easily reel of a list of 10 without drawing breath. . .so let’s assume you may have been a little too passionate when you wrote that and consequently may have exaggerated a little.
How about halving that number and going for 5?
You can even start with 1 if you like.
But OK. . .let me be the one to restart the conversation.
May I suggest you could try the same type of sub headings that BoM used at the last presentation I attended?
a) Who would need to use this information?
b) Why would they need to use it?
c) How would they like it presented?
From my perspective. . .as I am an irrigator in the southern MBD. . .and BoM has the responsibility of collecting and providing all the data for the new Federal Water Resource Plans. . . they seem to have somewhat lost their way according to their own sub headings.
They did not cover those 3 questions/subheadings and either did not like or did not understand any of the suggestions that came from the floor. . .which is very interesting indeed as we were a group of people who a) need to use this information b) Because our personal livelihoods and support communities depend on the sensible management of water resources and c) Need it presented so that we can compare and contrast with our historical records, our future investments and other important aspects such as inflows, dam levels etc..
of course. . .the inherent problem is more widespread that just water resource management. . . but you did ask to hear from my perspective.
So would you like to have a go at answering those BoM produced sub headings from your experience/perspective from talking to those ‘most producers’ that can reel of a list of 10 without drawing breath?
BTW. . .none of it is ‘rocket science’. . .and it has nothing to do with font type.
“Most producers” are good people with good hearts, nice families and even nice pets. . .there is no need to feel like you need to chew off your right arm when you talk to them.
And please. . .if you come up with any more of that ‘I can only conclude’ rubbish or falsely accuse me of attacking science. . .I will then MOST DEFINITELY CONCLUDE. . .that it’s simply not worth my time and effort.
Sorry Debs I must have misunderstood your last 100 posts. My blue.
Not critical of the research effort – well I am !
OK a list of 10
(1) greater accuracy, greater certainty, higher reliability
(2) current skill levels not really good enough, more information on what skill means
(3) northern animal industries want an idea of coming summer rainfall before June.
(4) predict the season break
(5) predict the passing and impact of the MJO
(6) give terciles not exceeding median
(7) predict next planting opportunity
(8) predict first and last frost
(9) local regional 2 days courses in the above plus weather
(10) better software data tools to compare different systems
(11) rainfall in the next 2 weeks
(12) variants of the above but for streamflow
Not a bad wish list Luke,
How much research is being done in those 12?
Actually they aren’t too bad at 9 and 11.
Interestingly. . . IMHO. . .sites like these do a better job than BoM and CSIRO at presenting some of the info:
http://www.yr.no/place/Australia/New_South_Wales/Coleambally_Creek/
http://www.willyweather.com.au/nsw.html
http://www.eldersweather.com.au/
Even more interesting. . . 2 of those sites use info directly from BoM. . .but their sites are far more ‘user friendly’.
Most of the pilots in our area recommend the 2nd one.
So why are you now suddenly critical of the research? . . .you have been continually berating me for being critical.
Are they perhaps being directed to FOCUS away from these things?
Will find you the figs tomorrow that demonstrate funding has gone UP not DOWN for BoM and CSIRO. . .can’t do it tonight. . .too busy.
But where has the money gone Debs. New Doppler radars are expensive ! You need some details.
Critical? – POAMA a bit too black box. It’s a bit take it or leave it. Like a good comparo of the old seasonal forecast system vs POAMA 2.4 (and add in the SOI phase system).
Need to know more detail on exactly how POAMA forecast is produced.
Like a good run through skill testing and have it explained.
POAMA not on the money since it has been released. Sample size of one but would like some comment. Also what gives with the Qld drought? Mysterious to me.
Reckon BoM should do a Webinar briefing for each month’s seasonal forecast release or Youtube.
But similarly I’d say critically to Jen – don’t make bogus out of date comparisons with POAMA 1.1 using a downscale method BoM don’t use. And if the neural nets are so good – where’s the web site so YOU Debs/the producers/landholders can use the system or check it’s practical use?
Other researchers have done seasonal forecasts and not claimed everything under the sun nor seemed to need to do the system to score one up on BoM – it’s about the needy users isn’t it? Or is it?
The main issue with all forecasts is to understand where you the farmer/grazier/miner/tourism operator/civil engineer need to make critical weather and/or seasonal climate decisions. How does the climate science link into the business. Maybe in some cases it doesn’t/can’t. If the research says low skill – sorry we don’t have anything useful. Pick climatology.
I’m amazed that you couldn’t give me any forecast needs (as per 1 to 11 above) for your operations. I really am ! Maybe it’s an anonymity thing. Although I suspect tracking down someone called Debbie into water agropolitics and rice growing wouldn’t be too hard. However, I don’t do such things as surely the ideas are what we’re here to discuss not try to personally harass individuals in their real life.
Luke,
There is no point in complaining about Jen to me. . .take it up with Jen.
I’m happy for anyone who wants to improve regional seasonal forecasting to have a go. . .when that area of research gets better then people like me will be very appreciative. I don’t care who ‘cracks it’. . .BoM, CSIRO, Abbot/Marohasy or whoever/whatever. I would reasonably expect BoM should have the best chance as it has access to vast public resources. . .but I still don’t really care who it is that starts to put those pieces of the puzzle together successfully.
And No. . .that does not mean that I expect 100% certainty or that I think it’s all bad. But it does mean that I would reasonably expect some measureable progress in this area (not PR spin)
But. . .pleased to note that you can see there are some communication problems with the customer base. . and a need for clearer feedback loops and some sensible streamlining of access to information.
As per your question about the money. . .of course some of it has been invested in new technology. . .but IMHO rather too much of it has been invested in a single minded attempt to centralise NRM and to produce a lot of fairly meaningless material based on large scale averages / means / averages. It’s interesting and clever and is useful for window dressing, justification for NRM rules and regs and PR work. . . but not much else.
For at least 10 years (and I’m guessing you’re not going to like this). . .any NGO or rep organisation that applies for Govt funding re NRM (including ag organisations). . .has learned they have to include a focus on “Climate Change” in their applications. . .or access their funding from other sources.
Interestingly. . .the mantra is those ‘other sources’ of funding are suspicious. . .with no recognition that it isn’t and shouldn’t be all about CC.
The reason why the CSIRO office in my area is nearly empty and why most of the excellent people who used to work there have gone elsewhere. . .is because the funding and resourcing has been directed elsewhere. . .Guess where?
As I have often said. . .and now notice you concede via your comment to DaveMyFace at the open thread. . .I do not blame the individual researchers/scientists as they are employees and are required to fill their job descriptions. . .just like any other employees.
So the problem IMHO. . .is the job description.
Finally. . .your amazement . . .I’m truly amazed that you’re amazed.
All of us out here who work in the REAL environment/climate/weather are by necessity realists and risk takers. We would all dearly love ‘climate science to link into our businesses’ and be business partners. . . but. . . (and you’re not going to like this either I suspect). . .our experience is that current NRM bureaucracies want to have all the accolades & resources and centralise the data bases, the rules and decision making. . . but load all the risk and financial responsibility onto their clientele and regions.
No offence. . .but they don’t seem to comprehend what being a business partner means to people who run their own businesses. . .all the way to simple things like risk management, CBAs, cost structures, cost sharing, cost recovery, CVPs etc…
I also concede that the fault partly lies with us as we have all been raised to respect authority and believe that the public service works to serve the public.
In NRM. . . that is very unfortunately not the case. . .those depts have been systematically turned into something like policemen because of the overriding centralised NRM rules and regs that is now their ‘job description’.
The pathway to delivering ecological goods and services has not lived up to anyone’s expectations and once again, very unfortunately, has successfully demonised, marginalised and seriously ticked off the very people who should and could be working with those in ‘authority’.
IMHO. . .the trust and respect has to be restored before any real advances in NRM can happen.
And as I said previously. . .am fine with anonymity. . .and would fight for your right to maintain it. . .but will not accept you using it to make totally unsubstantiated personal comments. . because it is irrelevant and boring…and will consequently view any attempts at discussion as a waste of my time.
Debs I’d like to say something positive to you but I find it very hard to get much across the void.
Modern science does have a problem – it’s called managerialism and the application of business principles to science. Driven by management not the science community.
Blame Harvard Business School. We were warned as early as 1991
http://www.the-rathouse.com/2010/Philip_on_soils__science___models.pdf
Luke,
So far, so good. . .and happy to continue. .
Thanks for the Phillip doco.
Interestingly. . .it has many remarkable similarities to some of Jen’s recent posts on science and philosophy.
Your comment re Phillip’s term ‘managerialism’ is not particularly different to mine re ‘job description’ so in that respect there is apparently not a void.
However. . .I do not agree that it is ‘modern science’ that has the problem or suffering from this disease. . . or that it is solely the fault of Harvard Business School or your very loose usage of the term ‘business principles’.
Those type of statements and broad brush conclusions would likely be coming from someone who has little to no experience in PERSONALLY running a REAL business (that produces REAL stuff that REAL people need/want in their everyday lives). . . and inclined to believe that all the ills of the world are some one else’s fault and someone else’s responsibility and that ‘THEY’ (whoever they is) should be forced to fix IT (whatever IT is).
The particular issue we are discussing here (IMHO) is not new and it resides in the culture and the mindset of NRM bureaucracies and a single minded attempt to centralise NRM policy with attendant & totally impractical ‘one size fits all’ rules and regulations that completely & massively fail to recognise that the Australian Environment/Weather/Climate is highly, highly variable and couldn’t give a rats’ about centralised State, Federal or International NRM legislation.
That culture and mindset has successfully demonised, marginalised and seriously ticked off the very people who could and should be working with NRM bureaucracies and that actually INCLUDES much of the ‘science community’ who work or have worked in regional and rural Australia.
So even if it may have something to do with ‘business principles’ from ‘Harvard Business School’. . .the simple facts are that it is NOT DELIVERING GOOD RESULTS and NOT LIVING UP TO ANYONE’S EXPECTATIONS as a successful pathway to the delivery of ecological goods and services.
It appears that Phillips thinks so too?
(IMHO) to ‘double down’ and create ever more contradictory rules and regulations and even more centralising of departments fits a well known definition of ‘insanity’:
“To continue to do the same thing, over and over again, and expect a different result.”
In my world. . .from across your void. . .that would definitely be classed as ‘POOR business practice’.
Good business practice includes things like: build on and improve what works, take responsibility for and fix mistakes, create value, invest in the future, invest in R & D, invest in good financial advice, use resources wisely and sustainably, embrace change and new technology, create strong partnerships & etc….
Are there bad/lazy/unscrupulous businesses/business people in Australia?. . .of course there are. . .just as there are lazy and unscrupulous people in every single human endeavour we could name (like bad doctors or bad dentists or bad lawyers or bad accountants or bad nurses or bad builders or bad truck drivers or bad mechanics or bad shop assistants or bad scientists & etc…)
But is it all bad and is the sky falling in around us and therefore necessary to create more and more centralised ‘nanny state’ rules and regs ?
Sigh – but your small business is not government and not a research agency. And nor should it be.
“Good business practice includes things like: build on and improve what works, take responsibility for and fix mistakes, create value, invest in the future, invest in R & D, invest in good financial advice, use resources wisely and sustainably, embrace change and new technology, create strong partnerships & etc….” yes and we’d agree to and aspire to a great many of these.
However if agricultural innovation had been user driven throughout history you may have ended up with a titanium coated digging stick with a GPS mount. Missed the tractor. So incrementalism condemns you to paradigms. Research needs to take risks. Some won’t pay off. What’s the difference between persevering and tenacity and being stupid?
An example – Leucaena is a high quality, long-lived leguminous forage tree. First introduced by CSIRO in the 1950s for extensive grazed systems for tropical Australia. Problem is that the mimosine compund causes the hair on cattle to fall out. Normally you’d give it away. However, a bright spark decided to try to introduce rumen bacteria from goats and cattle in Hawaii. Incrementalism doesn’t get you there. Off the wall innovation does and did.
Similarly putting BT toxin by genetic engineering into cotton plants.
Harvard has introduced endless reporting, projectising and performance indicators which have dumbed down science output and reduced many things to common denominators. Science is too hard and kids now avoid a STEM education. (science technology engineering mathematics). Science by massive consensus panels creating group think and difficulty to criticise (yes like Jen dislikes).
So great science innovation comes from some spontaneity, cross disciplinary action and needs nurturing not badgering. Additionally science is not like water – you can’t turn it on like a tap. May take 15-20 years for a scientist to become useful. Teams perhaps a decade to build.
Tell that to your noveau no-content science management professional and political appointee who’ll only be around 3 years till they move on. Now running the shows.
But alas more than ever – pollies like winners and every cent must be raked over and allocated according to a grand plan. Prepare to become the white trash of Asia.
“But I believe Harvard deserves much blame for the sad state of the administration of scientific research and undertakings throughout the Western world.” Phillip – page 94 !
I guess you’ve got an MBA ! 🙂
Sigh indeed,
You are starting to evade the meat and therefore the point of this discussion Luke. . . and reverting to ‘lecture mode’.
I read what Phillip believes on page 94. . .it is a well informed opinion re his experience with the system. . .but an opinion nonetheless.
My comments/opinion re ‘job description’ are indeed quite similar. . .but also much broader. . .the developing communication problem between NRM bureaucracies and their client base is not solely based on Harvard Business School’s idea of administration of scientific research. That is a rather simplistic conclusion and an easy way to shift responsibility.
No I don’t have an MBA. . .my business experience comes from Aussie education plus a good dose from the school of hard knocks. . .however I don’t lack a good tertiary education. . .nor considerable experience working from both sides of your supposed void.
You seem to believe that you have said something here that isn’t well known?
However if agricultural innovation had been user driven throughout history you may have ended up with a titanium coated digging stick with a GPS mount. Missed the tractor. So incrementalism condemns you to paradigms. Research needs to take risks. Some won’t pay off. What’s the difference between persevering and tenacity and being stupid?
Can I suggest that people who run their own agricultural businesses and the scientific/research community who actually work with these people are fully aware that there is a very fine line between perseverance and stupidity?
Can I suggest that the single minded attempt to centralise NRM is very likely an excellent example of stepping right over the top of that fine line?
May I also suggest that this is a bit of a diversion from what we’re really discussing?
But anyway. . .of course:
but your small business is not government and not a research agency. And nor should it be.
If you actually get that. . .then why are you missing the real point of contention here that government (and in this instance we are particularly discussing NRM bureaucracies) has increasingly lost credibility with the businesses that work in the NRM space ?
To say this:
Tell that to your noveau no-content science management professional and political appointee who’ll only be around 3 years till they move on. Now running the shows.
But alas more than ever – pollies like winners and every cent must be raked over and allocated according to a grand plan. Prepare to become the white trash of Asia.
Is on the one hand just stating the bleeding obvious and on the other hand an example of an attempt to shirk responsibility with an overly simplistic conclusion.
“So great science innovation comes from some spontaneity, cross disciplinary action and needs nurturing not badgering. Additionally science is not like water – you can’t turn it on like a tap. May take 15-20 years for a scientist to become useful. Teams perhaps a decade to build.”
Of course Luke!
Also, unfortunately, very unfortunately, teams and research endeavours can be instantly devastated by the stroke of a pen or the wave of an “environmentalist” arm. (and I mean the political movement. . . not the ACTUAL environment itself).
The ‘environmental movement’ has done exactly what you’re now complaining about when we consider NRM/agricultural research that doesn’t fit their very, very limited paradigms. . .they’ve badgered it!
But as I said before. . .responsibility rests on all sides. . .those who live and work in regional/rural Australia need to pay more attention and insist on being heard.
There really shouldn’t be such a widening chasm. . .we were all raised to respect authority.
Oh! forgot this one:
Science is too hard and kids now avoid a STEM education. (science technology engineering mathematics). Science by massive consensus panels creating group think and difficulty to criticise (yes like Jen dislikes).
This is yet another simplistic conclusion that once again states the obvious but on the other hand avoids responsibility.
You point the finger at Harvard principles (which is of course a contributor) but once again this is a bit of an example of ‘washing your hands’ of responsibility.
Scientists and researchers are not stupid people and there are many of them who are highly critical of the way public ‘environmental sciences’ have been funded and managed.
What happens to them when they publicly voice those criticisms and which branch/bunch of scientists and researchers are mounting those attacks with the tacit approval of our very own NRM bureaucracies and our very own NGOs?
As you must be aware, Jen has been on the receiving end of such behaviour.
No it’s not a simplistic conclusion with STEM – it’s a fact.
One is told that one works for CSIRO or a state research agency and publishes at the privilege of the agency. It’s not a right. These organisations are not universities with academic freedom. One doesn’t get to talk independently on behalf of the agency unless permitted. Code of conduct (thanks Harvard) now has whole courses on what determines a conflict of interest.
However, all said and integrating under the curve I think managerialism and content-free administration has gone too far. The nation will suffer strategically, economically and environmentally as a result.
Environmentalism hasn’t trashed soil science in Australia – it’s mainstream government. The same with much agricultural research – Treasuries have decided to leave the field !
I think Jen is a big grown up girl and knows what she’s doing. However with freedom also comes responsibility.
You talk about responsibility Debs – agricultural and natural resource science is just trying to survive ! Hanging on by a thread in a managerialist swamp.
I agree they are barely surviving Luke,
I just disagree about the trite and simplistic conclusions you are drawing like here:
“Environmentalism hasn’t trashed soil science in Australia – it’s mainstream government. The same with much agricultural research – Treasuries have decided to leave the field !”
3 things Luke:
1) We are most definitely NOT just discussing soil science (despite the fact that Phillip does )
2) The MONEY is still available. . .it has been redirected elsewhere and it most definitely does include strong pressure from the “environmental political movement”.
3) Soil science and agricultural research. . .and what most soil and ag researchers would see as bleedingly obvious. . .work best and get the best results when they work hand in hand.. . .the single minded attempt to centralise NRM via ‘environmental concerns’ has all but destroyed that important and productive relationship.
Here’s a thought. . .considering you are avoiding some of my questions.
If you are someone like Turney or Gergis & etc. . .there is not much of a problem gaining access to resources and no worries about applying for more funding for future projects. Even that Lewandowsky tosser got a hefty lump of public funding for his pseudo psychological research re responses to ‘climate science’. . .why is that do you reckon Luke? Is he more deserving than well qualified soil scientists and can he make a real difference in ‘climate science’ research?????
BTW. . . there isn’t a dearth of funding for science and research. . .it has gone up quite considerably . . . one of your questions re WHERE (!) it has gone is probably more relevant.
Yes Jen is a tough person. . .not enough of those who probably should be criticising the current situation . . .are as tough as she is.
So. . . while I do concede that more scientists SHOULD speak up and take some responsibility. . .that one is a very hard road. . .as people like Jen have discovered.
How many of the science community, who have families to support, would speak up like Jen and few others have?
I don’t think we can blame them. . .but that is most definitely part of the problem.
Avoiding questions? Debs that your trademark.
Haven’t read any of Lewandowsky’s material actually but I know he’s a big issue with sceptics. Most of the people you are complaining about are from universities.
Debs if state agency or CSIRO people speak out of turn in the current environment they’ll be terminated. Don’t come Monday. So you can be courageous and responsible and dead by Monday.
In QLD EHP, DAFF, and DNRM has been slashed and culture of fear now pervades. All sorts of programs are simply gone. Treasury has staff capped staff numbers and even if external funds are available staff are not allowed to be temporarily employed. It’s now unwinnable.
Nothing to do with greens or environmentalism. The beloved right wing experiment has pretty well smashed once world class capability. It’s a one size fits all mentality.
Abbott and CSIRO about to do the same. Nothing to do with greens – you’re fighting a cold war that’s gone – the tide is going out and ain’t coming back. The talent is simply blocked, slashed, leaving, retiring, expiring and not being replaced.
Even if Labor was returned it won’t be put back – all heil to Treasury, extreme right economics, and Harvard. Central agencies now rule. Both Labor and Libs will do the same.
So I’m not suggesting a free for all – or a free ride and I am advocating we make calculated risks, back winners without too much red tape, strive for excellence, quality processes, peer review and innovation.
But that’s exactly what you’re not getting. So how we increase agricultural productivity, product quality, locally add value, export to Asia and run an environmentally and sustainable show, which polling says a fickle public still demands, is becoming a pipe dream.
Your National party members need to review where the Coalition’s philosophy is heading.
Luke,
You are reverting to type a little bit.
How does this:
“How many of the science community, who have families to support, would speak up like Jen and few others have?
I don’t think we can blame them. . .but that is most definitely part of the problem.”
Differ particularly from this?
“Debs if state agency or CSIRO people speak out of turn in the current environment they’ll be terminated. Don’t come Monday. So you can be courageous and responsible and dead by Monday.”
On a few levels you seem to be ‘furiously agreeing’ with me but then you revert to your simplistic white hat/black hat political views that allow you to point the finger and blame something/someone else. . .replete with names like ‘right wing’ ‘your national party’ ‘sceptics’ ‘fickle public’ ‘extreme right economics and Harvard’ etc…..
The simple fact is that Federal investment in science, research and innovation has gone up from $4.97 BILLION in 2002/03 to $9.08 BILLION in 10/11 and rising. (ABS 2012)
Yet at the same time. . .as you point out:
“The talent is simply blocked, slashed, leaving, retiring, expiring and not being replaced.”
And as I have repeatedly pointed out. . .that is a chronic problem in rural/regional Australia.
The simple questions are:
Where and on what research has most of this money been spent?
Why has the talent left?
You appear to agree it has not been invested into:
” increas(ing) agricultural productivity, product quality, locally add value, export to Asia and run an environmentally and sustainable show ”
So where has it been invested in Luke? Which branch of science/research has benefited from this increased expenditure and for what purpose?
And Luke. . .are you now flipping off University PhD’s as somehow disconnected from all this and irrelevant? :
“Most of the people you are complaining about are from universities.” ?????
While I agree that much of the problem is political. . .I disagree that it has wings and only emanates from one institution or that it’s some type of ‘cold war’.
That is a simplistic conclusion that allows people (especially those ensconced in Academia and Bureaucracies) to shirk their portion of the responsibility. . .and continue to trash R & D and continue to ‘tick off’ the very people (INCLUDING MANY, MANY EXCELLENT SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS!!!!) who could and should be working with them.
And BTW?
Who or what is this mysterious bunch called ‘the sceptics’ and sometimes ‘the deniers’?
“Where and on what research has most of this money been spent?” well you can do some research and tell me.
“Why has the talent left?” retirement, retrenchment, policy not to replace, reprioritisation, attitude of Gen x and y to STEM, agricultural and NRM funding has been de-prioritised/out sourced?.
Universities – pretty mixed bag and they don’t deliver on long term programs. Where’s Jen’s forecast web site? Heaps of wanky useless stuff among some great material. Signal to noise ratio not the best.
Most of the sceptics are disenchanted mavericks having some fun sticking it up the system. Have made a career of it in fact. But does it build anything? Achieves what really? Point to a system – bricks and mortar or a resource any sceptics have made? Yet they can raise $100,000s for Monckton and Watts vaudeville tours – pullease. Should have spent it doing a first principles alternative analysis of the met data they so complain about. If you were marooned with sceptics on a desert island they’d deny a food source might exist and the table would be bare.
Damn!
You have lost the plot.
How disappointing 🙁 🙁
I restarted last time. . .not this time.
BTW. . .I’m no more interested in Monckton and Watts Vaudeville tours than I am in Flannery’s et al ‘climate council’ which has also raised funds for political advocacy. . .or Adam Bandt’s ‘climate criminal’ nonsense & etc
I think they are all more likely a symptom of the issues we were starting to discuss . . .not a cause.
Well Debbie instead of playing tag with me – why don’t you lay out the issues succinctly and propose a solution(s).
Myself I’m not optimistic – I feel that govt agricultural and NRM research is entering the dark ages. Perhaps private enterprise will pick up the ball.
BTW do you hear me promoting Flannery or Bandt material on a regular basis?
Tag team?
Very funny Luke.
Perhaps one solution would be to direct at least some of all that extra funding mentioned above back into Ag R&D rather than where it’s going atm?
Another would be to streamline communication and to construct genuine consultation and feedback loops?
Yet another could be to start appreciating and recognising what has been achieved rather than attacking and creating further excuses to police and create more centralised and inflexible rules.
And while we’re asking & suggesting ‘solutions’. . . What is your solution/s for the climate?
And no. . . not often noticed you promoting Flannery, Bandt et al. . .but have often noticed you defending them and what they say. . . and even using same terminology.
Well how much funding Debs. Where is it? You tell me…. what are the broad numbers.
And specifically what projects are you after?
I’m after your ideas. Being morally and intellectually bankrupt myself.
Luke,
Do you want to discuss these issues or not?
I have offered some ideas to help alleviate what you have also recognised as a serious and developing communication problem between NRM Bureaucracies/ Academics and the people who could and should be working with them in productive partnerships (Including many excellent people in the scientific community)
I have also asked you what your solution/s are for the climate.
If I thought you were morally and intellectually bankrupt I would not be bothering to waste my time with you.
So if it’s OK with you I would prefer you cut out the ‘victim mentality’ crap as I hear it often enough already from my own side of your supposed void and I have always found it to be totally unproductive behaviour. . .and usually ends up in childish finger pointing.
Are you pretending you have no idea, or that you don’t care where most of the science, innovation and research funding has been directed?
I am unclear why you would want to do that if that’s what you are doing?
Before we get into specifics. . .wouldn’t it be a good idea to outline:
a) What general areas of R & D investment are needed and why they would be needed?
b) How to alleviate the disconnect and distrust that has developed between the PS / Academia and the private sector so that they can work together productively on shared goals
??????
Debs – stop being a flake – you’ve had tons from me and you put nothing back except generalities. Again all you’re doing is playing tag. You have the floor – show some leadership… and I will listen. at 11:41pm above I asked some very easy specifics. If you have some serious ideas let it rip and I”ll listen – fill pages if you like.
You’re making the accusations about funding being elsewhere – well should be easy to show – SO SHOW ME ! I’m seriously asking. No tricks.
And you don’t like the programs, priorities or attitudes or consultation – SO SHOW ME and suggest some concrete alternatives.
I’m out of ammo
Stop reacting to me and show some leadership in the discussion. I am weary of playing tag with you.
Either you have some specific points/information/arguments or YOU DO NOT. Over to you.
Well Luke,
my 2 areas of experience and focus are water policy (local, state & federal) and native veg (local, state & federal).
In both areas, the funding has been directed towards proving that water needs to be confiscated from agriculture and that farmers have to jump through ever increasing hoops to justify using best practice, efficient farming techniques ostensibly in the name of saving the ‘environment’ and ‘the common good’
A very simple example is in this area. . . where we once had ONE bureaucracy to manage water resources (originally WCIC and later WRC). . .we now have 7 and rising. . . MI, CIL, SWC, NOW, SHL, MDBA, MIL, NWC. . . paradoxically managing less and with fewer paying customers. Add to that entities like CEWH,SEWPAC,CMA, OEH, DPI, BOM & CSIRO. . who although not directly paid by producers. . . are still inserting themselves into the arena and further complicating the legislation and the rules and regs. . .because it’s for the ‘environment’ and ‘the common good’.
Does that look like a sensible way to manage water resources in the Southern MDB to you?
If anything. . . native veg is even more of a dog’s breakfast.
Since I put my hand up approx 5 years ago. . . even though I am most definitely very respectful of and believe in sustainable, envoronmentally responsible practice. . . along with using best technology. . . I have lost all respect for what’s known as the ‘environmental movement’ and those who have graduated via the ‘environmental sciences’.
It’s not because I think they don’t care or that I think they are bad people. . . It’s mainly because they have NO IDEA about the people they should be forming productive partnerships with. . . and actually often believe that those very same people should be shackled and obstructed by ever more counter productive rules and regs. . . and that somehow. . . with zero experience. . . they know better. . . and that no one else can be trusted to ‘do the right thing’.
Further. . . when well qualified scientists and researchers speak out about this increasingly dysfunctional relationship. . . they are very quickly ‘demonised’ and accused of suspect motives.
But anyway. . .as it seems to be your pet topic. . . what’s your solution for the climate Luke?
Over to you.
No let’s keep going. This is much better. I did enjoy your last post.
So what are your important and needy production, natural resource, and environmental issues. Not in the entire world – just in your general region. Or national/global if affecting local.
Issues … I’m looking for some tangibles like errrr “how to get rid of carp” or “someone needs to develop infra-red thermometry for wheat irrigation” – I just made some stuff up here in an attempt to get some specifics ….
Or is it all just water allocation and compliance requirements.
Climate – my “solution” (really only adaptation) for you would be to get the best tools to help you manage weather and seasonal climate in your hands. And if possible to create some win-wins with carbon sequestration on-farm. Best future climate science to work out long term water allocations. And how future crop varieties might help adapt to and exploit higher atmospheric CO2, a changing/variable climate and also to improve water use efficiency. Also tax and economic measures that allow off-farm diversification to act as a climate stress buffer.
So Luke,
Simple questions for you.
What research and/or funding is being directed towards adaption. . .including R & D into further water use efficiency and future crop varieties?
Carp is a problem and yet the programs/research re mitigating carp (as well other invasive species) have been axed. Why is that do you think Luke?
What activities/ measures would you put under the heading of ‘off farm diversification’ that would act as ‘climate stress buffers’?
Off the top of my head I don’t know. And I don’t know why southern MDB carp programs have been axed. You’re the one who’s telling me the funding story and complaining it’s all gone somewhere. So enumerate away.
Off farm diversification – well strikes me if occasional bad droughts are the norm one needs off farm income to get through so some concessional tax treatments like Income Equalisation Deposits or better are needed. I would have thought such mechanisms that help farmers mitigate against no income years would be a part solution. But you tell me. You’re the user.
That is already in the pipe line Luke,
Has been trialled in WA for several years and is being implemented (sort of) in the Eastern States.
There are also other tax concessions and incentives that have been around for quite some time.
Of course the EC funding that you have often criticised and the use of the NSW single export desk by Sunrice (a grower/producer owned business) that you have often criticised are also similar measures that have been around for quite some time and have helped to alleviate the variability.
These are not new ideas that would need further administrative measures and/or further legislation.
In fact. . .one of the problems with what’s happening now is that we are witnessing a counter-productive ‘double up’ in admin as the Feds are muscling in on the admin side of these types of programs with extra departmental staff and extra ‘policing’.
It is interesting that you seem to think that we need ‘more issues’ to look for.
I think instead that we need to streamline the system, create genuine feedback loops, restore trust and respect and then just get on with it!
Once the dysfunctional relationships between rural/regional Australia and NRM bureaucracies/academics have been repaired and we have scientists and researchers working in regional areas who have a GENUINE understanding of both the environment and rural/regional communities rather than the current mindset that is often far too busy conveying allegations that primary production and agribusiness is some kind of juggernaut of environmental destruction . . . there are plenty of opportunities for R & D in productive partnerships.
BTW. . .I note you didn’t answer my basic question re water resource management (and it includes BoM and CSIRO)
We are not suffering from a lack of admin staff or a lack of the ability to collect data. . .it is rather the opposite. . .too many, too much (with no real purpose behind it). . .and the ability for all of these entities to avoid accountability, do ‘busy work’ (that attracts govt funding) and construct ‘big boys toys’ in the name of ‘water savings’ that squander gravity . . . and then load all the risk onto fewer paying customers.
That is not sustainable (IMHO).