Jennifer Marohasy, who inspired LOLdenialists, will be on Q&A tonight. You can use the link to post a question for her.
Hat tip: James Haughton.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
Jennifer Marohasy, who inspired LOLdenialists, will be on Q&A tonight. You can use the link to post a question for her.
Hat tip: James Haughton.
Worth noting that Our Jen has since removed her claim that it was all "Socratic Irony" from her blog: but never fear, the Internet Archive knows all, and tells all:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080822113858/http://www.jennifermarohasy.c…
It might be worth trying to get an answer out of her as to whether she's a fool or a rogue. She's always prevaricated in the past.
It would be better, surely, if there were absolutely no questions for her.
Surprisingly, my question for Our Jen is up on the Q'n'A website. No-one will be more surprised than I if thye actually ask it, but there are a couple of other quite pointed questions for her as well.
The show might be more entertaining than usual.
David @ 3, unfortunately [she](http://www.costumecauldron.com/shop/images/P/P-T/TA427.JPG) is already drumming up her [legion of undead followers](http://www.celluloiddreams.co.uk/images/aod2.jpg) to write in questions about how much better a scientist she is than Tim Flannery and how its so unfair that he gets called a "scientist" and she gets called a "climate skeptic". After all, it's only been a bit more than ten years since she published her last peer-reviewed article about invasive pests and became one herself.
James. fair enough, I wasn't counting on the legion of the dead.
Isn't her "qualification" in something like science journalism?
David @ 6,
Sadly, no. She has a doctorate of Biology, specialising in entemology. She once did some useful work on invasive insect species. Which tilts me strongly towards the "rogue" end of the spectrum - she knows she's selling bullshit to the highest bidder.
James H @ 5:
Oh very droll 8^)
@ 7:
Qualifications in earth sciences are no bar to publicly spouting whatever pseudo-scientific bosh suits your political agenda. After all it worked for Plimer and Carter ;-)
LOL you're on a roll James!
Well, it's on.
I never thought I'd say this, but go Tim Flannery!
Marohasy came across as someone who'd had a stroke and was treated with gentle kindness.
I thought she came across as a rude, overwrought, overbearing [expletive self-censored], myself. I may have some slight bias on the topic. Thank heavens Tim Flannery didn't let her get away with her serial lies.
I wish David Karoly was going to be on Q&A instead of Flannery. Flannery is nice but viewers need to see a denier being given a piece of their own medicine. Hopefully I might be wrong and either two things will happen or both: 1. Flannery will take on Marohasy in no uncertain terms or 2. viewers will see through the denier spin.
Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday taking the view that deniers frame the public discourse on climate change not the science, not policy, not how the public thinks. Methinks this is perhaps an insightful look at the problem we face. I was watching a lecture Clive Hamilton gave at the RSA here in London a few weeks ago and Clive called climategate, "a brilliant propaganda coup" and he is right. Putting Marohasy on Q&A is equivalent to putting a nonentity like myself on Q&A but when it comes to AGW the deniers call the public shots - we have to change this (Climategate was such a brilliant success the deniers MUST be looking for ways to replicate it, I know I would).
The thing we have going for us on Q&A (happening right now London time, I'll start streaming it in about an hour - non of these stupid Telstra/Optus down load limits, why Australia puts up with fraudband I don't know, roll on NBN and light up the dark fibre between Aust and the rest of the world) is that Marohasy makes so many howlers that hopefully nicey, nice Tim will be roused to correct her and hopefull Tony Jones will give her a hard time like he did to Plimer and Durkin.
James Haughton,
Your post @ 12..... Does this mean you are watching Q&A and the pessimism of my previous post is unjustified? Is nicey, nice Tim taking Marohasy on or is Marohasy suffering from FiM, hope so.
Perhaps I am completely wrong and inviting Marohasy onto Q&A was a cunning plan by someone in the Q&A production team, e.g. if Carter had been invited on his overweening ego might've had the audience believing what he said. Marohasy does fumble around a bit at times, so I hope she is doing that tonight. I look forward to streaming it.
Is it shaping up anywhere like the classic Plimer, Monbiot encounter on Lateline?
[James Haughton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/ask_marohasy_a_question_on_qa.p…).
It is indeed worth noting, and repeating, that Marohasy fiddled her record in order to hide the decline in her credibility. NOw, what would dear Jen have to say if she thought that climatologists did this?
Oh, that's right...
I must say that I am loving archive.org. It's making it much harder for the cherry pickers to twiddle the dials on their history-o-matics.
I'm wondering... is there a term for the Socratic irony of claiming the use of Socratic irony to elicit comment, only to 'vanish' evidence of the use of the claimed Socratic irony because it elicited unwanted comment, and in doing so eliciting further comment?
In a further ironic twist, I'd asked on that thread at August 18, 2008 01:32 PM if she would take the blog down as she had revealed her Socratic motivation. It seems that in the end her expedient was to simply take the thread itself down.
Titanic Jennifer - Mistress of Sinking Irony.
Mud, mud, glorious mud. Marohasy mud splattered everywhere.
Tim was very polite and Tony stepped in to give him space to say stuff without being shouted down by Ms Muddy.
What was really heartening was that it wasn't just Tim telling her she was wrong. If you warch the tweets running across the screen, viewers were writing in saying no! this is wrong, and so's that. And the audience were really annoyed with her by the end.
Stellar performance.
And I just loved the tweet suggesting that if Tim hadn't earned his OAM before, he was doing it tonight.
Speaking of [wrong, wrong, wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/ask_marohasy_a_question_on_qa.p…), Iam Plimer trotted out such a list of [nonsense on Counterpoint](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/3039797.htm) today that I lost count of the number of lies, misrepresentations, or simply sheer misunderstandings of the facts.
I might listen to the program on the radio-repeat this Friday, and take note of some of the more egregious idiocies, but perhaps a hardy and stalwart soul might pick up a quill and list them if they choose to listen to the online version before then.
In my opinion half the reason for the program was to advertise Plimer's book again to the CP audience - which rather sneaks under the ABC's advertising policy radar. After all, the book itself was irrelevant to the stated focus of the segment... I wonder if Mediawatch might consider it worth a comment?
> Climategate was such a brilliant success
If it counts as a success, then the denialists are vehemently losing.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!
the WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY - THE DANCE OF DEATH
youtube.com/watch?v=X0Hez25fFrg
the ungrateful bastards full of hubris...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
a bullet for your head, traitor
And finally, the *only* man in Minnesota who says there is no God has suddenly become an arbiter on mental health...
unfacts.org/factsforum/viewtopic.php?t=4080
COME SEE A PHOTO OF MABUS AND AN EXPLANATION OF IT!
The interviewer seems to be feeding Plimer's lines??
Clouds blah, drift into ideology double blah, political activist games at the Geological Society, predicting weather blah, blah, Hal Lewis - fed in by interviewer, SCAM!, locked in a basement playing with a computer, fashions-fools-frauds, minuscule effect blah, we can adapt, ...... You're very welcome, Bernie, to do this in detail. Going for a swim or a beer or a book would be a better use of your time, though.
Poor show on both their parts. At least the interviewer pulled it back a bit at the end re the Royal Society compared to the opening blather. Altogether, that's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
At least Marohasy versus Flannery was fun.
Wow,
Unfortunately, Climategate was a success, thats the problem and why we must never, never underestimate the cunning of denialists.
You'll have to define success for me, then.
It did help kill Copenhagen, but that was hardly a herculean task. The politicians practically to a man were willing to say something should be done, but unwilling to do what is needed to do.
Why?
Because they are now all career politicians.
But as far as Climategate is concerned, as far as I can see is that only the hardliners think it a success and has, in many cases, put the waverers off the denialist mantras, since it was so obviously overblown.
It is only a success if you listen to the echoes of the echo chamber.
Someone in Oz needs to please email Jennifer Marohasy the new paper by Dessler and Davis (in JGR-A) on tropospheric moisture trends. Morashy claims that tropospheric moisture is decreasing (she probably thinking of the Paltridge et al. (2009) paper). Anyhow, moisture measurements from radiosondes have issues and therein lies the problem with Paltridge's findings, b/c unlike the other reanalysis products, the NCEP reanalysis does not assimilate moisture derived form satellites and relies solely on (troubled) radiosonde humidity data to constrain the runs.
From Dessler and Davis (2010):
"The five reanalyses analyzed here (the older NCEP/NCAR and ERA40 reanalyses and the more modern Japanese Reanalysis (JRA), Modern Era RetrospectiveâAnalysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), and European Centre for MediumâRange Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)âinterim reanalyses) unanimously agree that specific humidity generally increases in response to shortâterm climate variations (e.g., El Niño)."
And
"In response to decadal climate fluctuations, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is unique in showing decreases in tropical mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity as the climate warms. All of the other reanalyses show that decadal warming is accompanied by increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity. We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative longâterm specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons." Which they go on to list.
Perhaps the most important finding from their research is this:
"And finally, we point out that there exists no theoretical support for having a positive shortâterm water vapor feedback and a negative longâterm one.
Marohasy's claim that not warmed since 2000 is wrong-- surprised she didn't say 1995 ;)
See this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/plot/gistemp…
Also see:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha00510u
"We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of tropical ocean temperature."
Actually, someone should send these data and the results from my previous post to all the panel member from the Q&A episode.
Oh, and she effed up on trying to use Trenberth's much abused statement about the missing heat. Someone should correct her and inform the panel about that one too.
It's a waste of time trying to educate Marohasy, Maple Leaf. Many people have tried in the past, only to quit in frustration.
As an aside, I'm surprised she hasn't turned up here for one of her drive-bys. Possibly she's still recovering from the new arsehole Tim Flannery just tore her.
You can download the episode here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast.htm
Usually by now the Q&A ep is available to stream directly but not tonight for some reason so I am having to download the same thing. If I was a conspiraciast I would blame it on deniers.
I thought, on the whole, Tim Flannery did quite well BECAUSE he was polite and calm. Marohasy came across as a shrill barrow-pusher, and her constant interruptions (seemed) to really dent her credibility with the audience. For her to claim that climate science denialists are an oppressed group who's view find no representation in main-stream media, while shouting down her opposition on the AB friggin' C no less was not a good look. Coupled with the fact she seemed to focus on the worst of the denialist talking points (Kevin Trennberth said this during climate gate! The world hasn't warmed! etc...), it it did not make a compelling spectacle. But, I am biased...
Flannery, on the other hand, would calmly respond to most of her points (it was impossible to get through all the gish gallop). I normally despise him as a wishy-washy placate everyone kind of guy, but in this instance, he was a very good foil.
I agree with ChrisC @ 29, Tim's politeness, combined with his firmly pointing out Marohasy's rudeness and errors, made him look much more mature and credible than she did.
Flannery did good. I didn't realise he was that good. Both Tim Hunt and and Mike Kelly were also good value but Tim Hunt must have the devil of a time with members of his party.
Good rational discussion tonight i.e. Kelly, Hunt and Flannery and I'm glad the Oz journo didn't get much of a look in and the point that Guthrie has made elsewhere about Murdoch's influence on his papers is its not that Murdoch directly issues editorial orders from day to day its more editors thinking, "what would Murdoch think".
The most interesting thing about Murdoch and his media assets is whats going to happen after he dies.
Flannery handled Marohasy well, good on him.
PS those keen to give chapter and verse on which bits of science Marohasy misrepresented this time (no warming since 2010, lower humidity with heat, etc) might want to do so in the relatively neutral venue of the relevant [ABC message board](http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=114&t=14&a=0&ps=50&m=…).
MapleLeaf:
Even this excludes 2010. One fact in particular that fact denialists are scrupulous in avoiding is the temperature during 2010. This makes the trend since 2000 even higher when it is included.
The fact denialists have been able to get to get away with this because one way or another, they can ignore 2010 temperatures. It will be interesting to see their tactics when the announcements start coming through that 2010 was the hottest year on record.
I thought Flannery did well. Marohesy was either outright lying or is completely deluded. I vote lying, because, as we've seen from a banned commenter here, knowing The Truth gives you the moral authority to behave how you want and the right to convert the public through any means necessary.
God knows how she would have reacted if Flannery had spoken over her. All the usual suspects would be screaming about ABC bias. Denialists don't hold themselves to the same standards they hold everyone else.
Also, did anybody catch the nutter in the audience shouting for a royal commission? Re-read what I wrote above re: moral authority.
>It will be interesting to see their tactics when the announcements start coming through that 2010 was the hottest year on record.
I've already seen their responses to the 2010 connundrum from dealing them online:
"The temperature record is wrong! So what? There was record snowfall in northern Scotland! Royal commission!"
Poor ole prince Tim Flannery.
'Squirm baby squirm....' ! :-)
James "those keen to give chapter and verse on which bits of science Marohasy misrepresented this time (no warming since 2010, lower humidity with heat, etc) might want to do so in the relatively neutral venue of the relevant ABC message board." - only if you want to totally depressed by reading the other responses, our Jen it seems was the only real scientist there but was shut down, prevented from speaking by that rude Flannery and ABC bias.
Incidentally I am still not sure about the nature of her PhD, you might check, I seem unable to find the bit I found once before when she was an IPA employee.
Why did the IPA give her the boot? Were they too embarrassed by the dross she posted on her blog in their name?
I don't know if the IPA gave her the 'boot', afterall does anyone ever leave the church of the invisible hand? She may just have wanted a change. From jousting with her across a couple of years when her blog was live I got the impression she wasn't as hamstrung by her ego as Coulding, Carter et al and you could have a hammer and tongs fight with her and she wouldn't hold grudges even when she got angry from having her mistakes held up and dissected. This invariably happened when she would make a claim that a denier had been 'silenced', I seem to remember some hilarious incident about a guy at Bond University. She seemed to get taken in by such stories and then had to suffer us all making merry with her claims or the 'evidence' she unearthed. It maybe that because her blog was such a very good experience for those of us that were new to the bogus claims of deniers that after a while she just got sick of having her world view trashed during waking hours whereas some one like Coulding will just rework her discourse.
Apologies to all of the non Australian readers here about going on about such a paraochial issue but Australia seems to be such a fertile ground for the spawning of wingnuts that it provides the rest of us Australians with , both, hours of ammusement and hours of worry.
Her contract was not renewed by the IPA, then not long after she shut it down. Her problem was there was no idea that was too crazy for her to publish. She was still putting up ideas denying the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, when the rest of the denialist movement with any brains had moved on to the 'lukewarmer' position.
Truffles, she was still putting up ideas denying basic physics, period. Curiously, many of those posts have since disappeared from her website's archive. They were a goldmine - I used to send people who were uncertain, had reasonable seeming objections, thought there were two sides to the argument, etc, links to her site so they could see who they'd be getting into bed with on the Denialist side. Can't think why she removed them.
Jeremy C - " From jousting with her across a couple of years when her blog was live I got the impression she wasn't as hamstrung by her ego as Coulding, Carter et al and you could have a hammer and tongs fight with her and she wouldn't hold grudges even when she got angry from having her mistakes held up and dissected."
It was a fun place for a while. Where else could you laugh along with Louis Hissink and his crackpot lunacy. I tried to get her to retract the "hasn't warmed since 1998" meme by insisting that she post the graph from 1870 onward that actually showed this. Needless to say no such graph was ever posted only the ones starting from 1998.
I quit when the super lunatic and generally nasty person Graeme Bird started his vitrolic and totally insane posts. It stopped being fun at that point.
I've just watched the QandA video. I was a bit surprised that it seemed to be actually a bit more civilised than our own equivalent, Question Time (BBC). Marohasy came across as more reasonable (I know, it's not saying much!) than, say, Melanie Phillips. I think she's deluded or incompetent rather than dishonest, and lacks the nastiness common to many other denialists. On her own blog she's never behaved in the way that Watts does, for instance, in "outing" people using pseudonyms, and I think she might be OK as a person.
In contrast to Ender, I found The Bird most entertaining. For any who wonder what he's like, here's a little [collection](http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/) I made a couple of years ago.
I've been charged by black rhinocerous that came across as more reasonable than Melanie Phillips.
43 Bud,
It's easy to find articles and blogs by Phillips but perhaps many here have not seen her [on Question Time](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8382037.stm). Enjoy!
Who is Jenifger Marohasy? Sorry, do not familiar with her name.