Penny Sackett's comments at a Senate Estimates hearing yesterday were interesting, and sad. Will look forward to reading the full transcript on Hansard in a couple of days.
So it seems the majority of people in the great southern wide brown land don't want any big fat CO2 tax. Is this because they don't 'believe' the ALP ? :-)
"A Galaxy poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs has found that only a third of Australians think the world is warming due to human carbon dioxide emissions."
Very interesting reading and Moran lied outright - am I surprised.
I guess the IPA must be very despondent at the outcome of the survey. However the depressing thing it is the large numbers who don't accept the science and the large numbers of people who responded to the question about conflicting evidence - a lying furthy in itself.
The question asked for agreement with one of the following options:
The world is warming and man's emissions are to blame
The variation in global
temperature is just part of the natural cycle of nature
There is conflicting evidence and Iâm not sure what the truth is
None/ Donât know
Two correlations are immediately apparent:
Age:
18-24 : pro-AGW 52%; pro-denial 19%
50+ : pro-AGW 27%; pro-denial 35%
Education:
No Yr12: pro-AGW 19%; pro-denial 38%
Yr12 : pro-AGW 41%; pro-denial 20%
*** Column header for this one is ambiguous - could actually mean the opposite, in which case they've interviewed people with no Yr12 v. people with at a ratio of over 4:1, which would mean it was an odd sample they found.
Another interesting finding is that people with children only have 19% rate of denial while people without children have a 30% rate of denial.
Some time ago, Mashey already wrote a very detailed examination of the link between age and denial.
Unsurprisingly, there would also appear to be a link between lack of education and denialism.
Is Alan Moran *really* proud of championing a disinformation campaign aimed at the ignorant and the senile?
Wow, Hansard is up - I'm only about 20& of the way through it, but look for Ian MacDonald "majority of the world's scientists don't agree with IPCC" and Sen. Boswell "you're wrong about sea level rise because I rang somebody at BoM and they told me the figure is 0.09mm/Yr not 3.2mm/Yr".
"Senator IAN MACDONALDâAll of those scientists have a preconceived view; there are no doubters
amongst the scientists. For example, you have not invited Professor Carter to join."
Yeah, 'cos Bob Carter doesn't have a "preconceived view" or anything....
Haha - I've notice Penny Wong has a bit of spirit...
Senator IAN MACDONALDâAll of those scientists have a preconceived view; there are no doubters
amongst the scientists. For example, you have not invited Professor Carter to join.
Ms SidhuâWe have selected the members of the science advisory panel on the basis of their eminence in
the field. They were selected in consultation with all of the commissioners, including Professor Will Steffen,
who is the science advisor on the commission. One of the prerequisites is that the members of the science
advisory panel are eminent in their field, have published peer reviewed literature and can make a contribution.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâAnd have a particular view. Nobody who has not got a view, that same
view, is on the science panel.
Ms SidhuâThat was not the basis of the selection.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâDo you think it would have been wise, perhaps in the interest of
accountability and openness, to pop on someone who is known not to share the view so that you get a range of
opinion?
Senator WongâScientists were selected on merit, Senator.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâYou talk about maligning people who cannot defend themselves, Senator
Wong; that is a classic.
Senator WongâI am simply saying that the government does not make a decision based on peopleâs
particular views. Advice was taken and the decisions were made on the basis of that.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâYou obviously did not take advice from me. I would have suggested you put onâ
Senator WongâThat is true. On climate change, I confess, I do not take advice from you.
Ah, Ian MacDonald doesn't understand what "pro rata" means:
[MacDonald is persisting with his ongoing attempt at maligning Flannery]
Senator IAN MACDONALDâThat is okay. I guess I can Google him and find out. Tell me, is it true that
he is getting $180,000 salary?
Ms SidhuâThe basis on which the chief commissioner is paid is on an average of three days duty per week
over a course of a year. This equates to, pro rata, about $180,000 per year, yes. That is about equivalent to, for
example, what Professor Garnaut is being paid at the moment for his services, pro rata.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâSo it is much more than anyone sitting at this table is getting paid for a
seven-day-a-week job, ...
Richard Muller is going to give a talk U.C Berkley. The title of the talk is The Current Status of Climate Change - A Non-Partisan Analysis. The Q & A should be interesting.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâOkay, but you are providing money to educate the public on their view of
climate science, and I assume from that, in fairness, you will be providing Professor Carter and his literally
thousands of professional colleagues with similar funding so that they can educate the public on their view on
the science?
Senator WongâThere are also people who believe the world is flat, and the government does not fund
that.
jakerman: Good luck getting factual comments on CC related issues through at the ABC. I suggest keeping a record of your comments, the peice you are commenting on etc for your records. You will need them when you end up lodging a complaint for bias by the moderators. If you wish to contribute there you _will_ end up lodging a complaint. Also: if you find all comments mysteriously disappear removing cookies and LSOs restores functionality.
Clutching at straws there again are we jakerman #3 - There is of course only 1 poll that counts. We will see which way the water-melons fall there soon enough :-)
Vince @ 13. I hope Wong's feistyness is a sign of things to come. Abbott was literally frothing at the mouth (I kid you not) during today's parliamentary debate on the climate tax. He realises that this debate is his one chance at power given that his One Nation bigotry has gone pear shaped. Gillard and company need to take their approach in Parliament on the road over the next 18 months i.e show some f'ing leadership. They occupy the high ground - the economic and scientific support - for action on climate change and they should stick it to Abbott and his supporters from the flat earth society every chance they get. Garnaut and Flannery have been known to have a go as well. Every time one of the flat earthers raises his/her head above the parapet it should be shot off.
While I am not a great fan of Stephen Conroy, he deals effectively with the anti-NBN crowd by taking them on. Whether you support the NBN or not, the debate has elements in common with the climate change debate. Turnbull claims wireless and the NBN are equivalent. As communications experts point out the laws of physics beg to differ. Conroy does not let any anti-science claim by Turnbull or the wireless boosters escape without responding.
You dont win a debate by deserting the high ground for the middle ground which Gillard et al have a tendency to do. Put him under enough pressure over the science and Abbott will self-destruct or the Liberals will split between the Turnbull and One Nation wings as has happened over refugee policy.
In my view what is amazing about the polls (whether stacked by the IPA or a poll with more credibility) is how much support there still is for action on climate change given the almost total lack of leadership on the issue from our politicians and the sustained attack on the science from the flat earthers and their friends in the media.
Hmmm, i don't think much of polls me-self, all sorts of errors can creep in, e.g. i never answer a poll and others i've asked wont waste their time with polls. I'm thinkin the people who answer polls are probably a certain type and not representative of the larger population.
...anyway, workin with what we gots here its interesting seeing the age related numbers in the IPA/Galaxy poll. Getting a gist of how the corrupt carbon trading/tax scam will ruin the economy is probably something that comes with age...
.
"...financial mistakes follow a U-shaped pattern, with the cost-minimizing performance occurring around age 53..."
@ Vince - it would be (mildly) interesting to explore further any correlations between age, education and denial among other things.
I expect there is also a correlation between age and education. (Mass higher education only began with the baby boomers.) Any causal relationship would be more difficult to establish, though not necessarily impossible.
When you see them all gathered together, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the woman may be mentally unhinged.
Which of course sounds like an attack, but is actually an observation attempting to reconcile the blatant inconsistencies she doesn't just say but writes within days of each other.
The story in The Australian: âCrikey forced to remove fake Abbott storyâ was actually related to a satirical comment (number 502 of 1400) in a post on the Poll Bludger blog site run by William Bowe with Crikey. It wasn't "a Crikey story. Or a Crikey article. Or even a Crikey blog post".
Overington, who wrote The Australian's story, spoke to Crikey before she wrote her story. She was told the comment had been deleted.
@22 On the surface of it and going by her own written record, she certainly appears to have some, err, "issues".
@18. Yeah Binghi, like the banning of CFCs many years ago to protect the ozone layer ruined/destroyed/collapsed/obliterated the world economy, just as the industry said it would.
"@18. Yeah Binghi, like the banning of CFCs many years ago to protect the ozone layer ruined/destroyed/collapsed/obliterated the world economy, just as the industry said it would."
I think, this time round, we are being asked to do a little more than change our brand of deodorant. If only it were that simple. ;)
Those comments by Penny Wong are priceless, linking denialism to flat earthers was droll, just droll.
MikeH @ 16 you have brought a fundamental problem of this government in Australia - they are incapable of communicating their ideas - we saw this happen with ETS Mk 1. Abbott could be all over them on this so I hope they have learnt. The thing that may help them is that the Australian public may just think that Abbott is just repeating the same mantra all over again. The government has a very, very difficult balancing act, its got the greens and the fossil fuel industries on opposite sides and then its got Abbott, the man who would destroy Australia in order to win at what he sees as winning.
Wow,
Sorry but Senator Penny Wong (long sigh) is gay otherwise my boot would be on your neck while I ask her out to dinner.
"Senator WongâScientists were selected on merit,..."
"Senator WongâI am simply saying that the government does not make a decision based on peopleâs particular views. Advice was taken and the decisions were made on the basis of that."
"...the government does not make a decision based on peopleâs particular views..." Hmmm, i wonder how the 'advice' given made a decision on the 'merit' of some...
In fact banning CFCs and halocarbons was a very big thing. CFCs were universally used in refrigeration, aerosols, and many other industries, and if you think banning a substance considered essential to refrigeration is not a big deal, you are truly deluded.
The chemical industry around the world vehemently resisted such a ban. The aerosol industry in the US predicted the collapse of their entire industry! The electronics industry predicted unmanageable hardship. Blah blah blah.
So tell me: how are the aerosol, chemical, and refrigeration industries doing these days?
With CO2 we are being asked to be: not wasteful, smart, innovative, and so on regarding our consumption of fossil fuels and waste CO2 production.
Is that honestly beyond your capability? Just too hard?
Binghi, no need to 'wonder' Binghi, either produce a "so called skeptic" with a more merit than the current merit based selection, or accept that Penny is correct.
People draw strongly on what they were taught in school. The Greenhouse Effect would not have filtered through to most high school science classes until the 1970s at the earliest. By now I'd expect it to be integrated into high school curricula of many subjects, not just science. And presumably primary school curricula as well. (Even up until the mid-1960s it was not uncommon to leave school after what is now called Year 8.)
IMO intelligence is probably not as highly correlated with education as is, say, GDP. (I've not tried to measure either relationship.) Not having had the education to understand climate physics is not the same as not having the intelligence to observe the now evident change in local climates.
In future it could be that older people see the changes more by comparing it with past weather they've experienced; younger people will view erratic weather and increasing heat as the norm. That's all they will experience in their lifetime.
A great point Sou. So often I read in comments threads "When I was in school in the 50's/60's, we learned that blah blah blah so global warming is an OUTRAGEOUS SCAM!"
Part of me also wonders whether the obsessions they have with personality over science stems from classical science education in which figures like Newton are idolised.
"...In fact banning CFCs and halocarbons was a very big thing..."
"...The chemical industry around the world vehemently resisted such a ban. The aerosol industry in the US predicted the collapse of their entire industry! The electronics industry predicted unmanageable hardship..."
Part of me also wonders whether the obsessions they have with personality over science stems from classical science education in which figures like Newton are idolised.
I think there were plenty of places to learn obsession with personality other than science classes. BTW, I learnt far more about Newton from reading books than from classes and I can't recall any exam question that was in any way biographical about Newton. But maybe I didn't have a "classical" science education.
Having recently been part of a selection process aimed at recruiting people with specific skills to a well-remunerated position, and therefore at risk of attracting post-process queries from disgruntled unsuccessful applicants, I can describe to you generally how it is done in government so that everybody can be satisfied that it is visibly above board.
First, the requirements are defined - what skills are you looking for, and how a person's match against those skills can be judged. A set of criteria are written down, and a group agrees on the wording. Discussion go on at length.
Then, you read some CVs. People who look likely to match our criteria are interviewed.
Then, another round of people sitting down to agree on the interview questions occurs. This goes on for quite a while.
At interview, a series of questions is posed - the questions are aimed at getting the maximum information from the candidate in relation to the stated criteria.
Careful notes are taken.
Post-interview discussion is very careful to include everything positive about the candidates we feel are less likely to succeed, as well as everything negative about the candidates who are an obvious fit for the criteria.
At the end of all this work, it becomes fairly obvious who is going to get the job offers, but the public servants involved can be satisfied that they have made every effort to demonstrate that they are acting with the high level of ethics that are expected of the public service.
It is not surprising that the deniers have trouble understanding that the public service takes every care to be seen to act ethically, because the deniers have demonatrated time and time again that they are dishonest scumbags, spinning their bullshit story to suit their twisted ideology.
Sorry but Senator Penny Wong (long sigh) is gay otherwise my boot would be on your neck while I ask her out to dinner."
Ever seen "Coupling" (the UK version, I suspect the US one is neutered)? Jane is trying to cop off with a gay bloke and he says "I'm gay" and she replies "That's OK. I'm bi-sexual!".
Hey @Jeremy C - not being funny, but Penny Wong being gay shouldn't have any bearing on whether you should invite her out to dinner - I know I'd love to have dinner with her, I do really love her work, even if there's zero chance of me ever again voting for the party that opened the floodgates on illegal immigrants and stuck the boot into Julian Assange.
>*How does that merit based selection work jackerman.*
Use what ever merit scale you think most appropriate to the task, ie competence in climate science, policy development, tax system, etc. Then show how your selection is superior to that of those you want to criticize.
@37 Yes indeed, if you look into the background claims it does show an interesting story Binghi.
An interesting story of how from its New York Times newspaper ad in 1975 right through to the 1986, Du Pont (the world's largest manufacturer of CFCs) was trying to muddy the waters in the face of sustained, overwhelming, and undeniable scientific evidence of CFC-induced ozone depletion. Of course, they changed their mind once they had patented a replacement for CFCs. "Oh did we say CFCs weren't hurting the ozone layer? Oh no we didn't say that. We meant to say they are hurting the ozone layer. Now come buy our replacement."
A story of how DuPont in 1975 told a US Senate hearing that restrictions on ozone disruption would cause "tremendous economic dislocation".
The list goes on Binghi, but I'm kinda tired of doing your research for you.
Yes, FB it does show an interesting story. Vested interests lying to protect those interests to the detriment of the environment, obfuscation, displacement - everything that we see with AGW. Mother Jones has a [nice backgrounder](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AucDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=mo…) from 1989.
And what do we see?
Industries claiming no alternatives, despite alternatives? Emphasising scientific uncertainty? What about the role of clouds? Delay and denial. Whines that unilateral change can make no difference, but will bankrupt the industry.
Yep, its got everything we are all to familiar with for the climate change denialosphere.
The only thing Ozone denial had than AGW denial doesn't is a topless picture of 1920's dancer Josephine Baker half way through....
>An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.
via Vince Whirlwind #41, "...Having recently been part of a selection process aimed at recruiting people with specific skills to a well-remunerated position..."
I like [this comment at Slashdot](http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2012334&cid=35311784) that sneakily describes Watts' failure as a success. You can tell it's on purpose because it switches back and forth between what Watts hoped to find and what was actually found (by people not named Watts). The next comment is just as funny, too, although it's unintentional humour.
@45 and @46 I believe it was a similar story with acid rain, which was a serious concern in eastern Canada and US in the 1970s-80s (and not entirely gone now). I don't know if they actually denied there was a problem, but I believe industry argues that pollution controls would destroy the economy - only they didn't.
Holly Stick, methinks yer combining different subjects there. As far as i remember there were not much objections from us common people to controls attempting to stop the so-called acid rains - it is a fairly diverse catch-all though, eg. banning wood fired heaters/stoves in some city's to get rid of smog and health problems is also linked to acid rain by some. Just because somebody looks at the anthropogenic global warming 'science' claims and finds overblown hysteria don't necessarily mean that they disagree with the 'science' of acid rain or ozone - looking at the activist hysteria and politics of acid rain and ozone is a whole different subject though.
One thing i notes in this blog is the attempt by some to link many different subjects to the one 'belief' or side. The real world is far different. eg, whilst i think the global warming claims are overblown hysteria i'm a firm believer of a soon to arrive 'peak oil'. IMO we need much research into viable oil alternatives.
Holly'll appreciate the irony that some geoengineers actually want to inject a gajillion tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere then.
Acid rain, acid schmain! By putting the aerosols back that we stupidly removed with those short-sighted so-called "clean air" acts, we can fix this overblown problem without crippling our economies.
CAGW-be-gone!
:-)
Of course, the fact that its the intellectual equivalent of saying, "There are no consequences to overeating, thanks to the miracle of liposuction", doesn't seem to register...
via Binghi #56, "Just because somebody looks at the anthropogenic global warming 'science' claims and finds overblown hysteria don't necessarily mean that they disagree with the 'science' of acid rain or ozone - looking at the activist hysteria and politics of acid rain and ozone is a whole different subject though. "
@35 John
"When I was in school in the 50's/60's, we learned that blah blah blah so global warming is an OUTRAGEOUS SCAM!"
Interesting. I live in Canada and a lot of older people 55+ like me say.
"Winters are not like they used to be. We don't have the snow we used to" and "It's seldom much more that -25C (~13F). Looks like global warming is having an effect."
I don't know about the polls but most older people I know accept AGW, (well global warming anyway)as a fact.
"Holly Stick, methinks yer combining different subjects there. As far as i remember there were not much objections from us common people to controls attempting to stop the so-called acid rains - it is a fairly diverse catch-all though, eg. banning wood fired heaters/stoves in some city's to get rid of smog and health problems is also linked to acid rain by some."
Are you Australian?
I live in Canada and have friends in Europe. Acid rain was destroying large amounts of our forests and turning large numbers of lakes in Eastern Canada acidic enough to kill off fish etc. It was not some simple problem with some wood burning stoves (Newcastle in Australia?)
Instead we were talking about millions of hectares of land and probably 100's of thousands of hectares of lakes and rivers in Canada alone--just one large lake in Ontario Canada (Simcoe)has an area of over 700 hectares and we have several thousand lakes in the province let alone the country.
Acid rain was/is a very nasty threat. Heck, a few wood stoves have no real effect compared to coal-fired generator plants up-wind in Ohio.
The Black Forest in Germany was/is similarly endangered.
I've not done any surveys, but a lot of people I know who are 60 plus agree the climate is changing, including over 90s.
I suspect the correlations are not clear cut - ie voting preference / age / education / income bracket etc - any and all of which could influence a person's opinion.
I don't think those over 80 and certainly not those over 90 years of age should be burdened too much by the idea of AGW. They've had enough to deal with in their life time and should be allowed to enjoy their final years :)
Public Service selection processes - especially for well-remunerated positions - are conducted with the idea of the entire process being subjected to a subsequent FOI request.
So - *you* suspect wrongdoing in others, because *you* are dishonest yourself.
Your suspicion bears no relation to reality and you make no attempt to base your opinions on an analysis of available facts.
Your frame of reference - (presumably you are very familiar with the world of dishonest tradies over-quoting for a job and under-supplying for it) - is not of any use to understanding the highly ethical process of the Australian Public Service.
via Vince Whirlwind #67; "...So - you suspect wrongdoing in others, because you are dishonest yourself. Your suspicion bears no relation to reality and you make no attempt to base your opinions on an analysis of available facts.
Your frame of reference - (presumably you are very familiar with the world of dishonest tradies over-quoting for a job and under-supplying for it) - is not of any use to understanding the highly ethical process of the Australian Public Service..."
Seriously, what is with the gazillion Os and the carriage return-dots? Your posts are incoherent as a consequence of your poor formatting - and in no small part due to your poor understanding of science...
Are you really as semi-literate as you appear to be?
If you have questions about APS selection processes, can I suggest you contact the APSC? They will have the information you require.
Back to the Estimates Hansard, I found this bit:
Senator LUDLAMâ.[...] We have spent much of the day explaining high-school-level environmental
science concepts to coalition senators and I apologise that we have wasted a big chunk of your day.
Jeremy C wrote:
>>The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the
>> definitive truth about global warming
>
> I'd be interested in what other people think if they get
> time to look at it.
Judith Curry and Richard Muller are involved, so I'm not optimistic.
I suspect that the Berkeley Earth project is an exercise in wheel reinvention.
Muller thinks that he has the edge because he is starting with the concept of an elipse with two foci, rather than just a plain circle... more is better, after all.
When all is done and dusted, hoever, he is likely to find himself remarking that the original inventors had it right - and that the elipse works best when the two foci coincide...
via Vince whirlwind #72; "...If you have questions about APS selection processes, can I suggest you contact the APSC? They will have the information you require. Back to the Estimates Hansard, I found this bit:..."
Vince whirlwind, while you were in Hansard i though yer mighta given us the references to job selection criteria - seems i'm not the only one questioning things...
Imagine what such a move could do for stalling action on emissions reduction, if it could gather the momentum spread beyond Wisconsin...
On a different matter, I wonder how many more winters it will take until the Hundson bay does not reach its annual [maximum freezing asymptote](http://i54.tinypic.com/f3ch7l.jpg)?
Does anyone know anything about the tree on the front cover of Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" - a book that's crying out for the hand of a decent editor, by the way...
Given the image is small and a little indistinct, it looks just like many of the windswept trees (hawthorn?) atop hills on Dartmoor or Yorkshire hills.
Someone here must have the book. What's the picture credit line say?
Yes, I suspected hawthorn. In particular I was wondering if it was a clone of the Glastonbury thorn, and if not, whether it had any particular mythological background.
A new smear and innuendo piece on the BoM data quality (we knew this was in the pipeline) in ABC's The Drum [today](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44734.html). I have put up a comment which I copy below.
>"Researchers have found that BoM has adjusted the raw data upwards by 40 per cent for rural temperatures and by 70 per cent for the urban temperatures. This means that a temperature trend of 0.6 degrees for rural locations was increased to 0.85 degrees while in the towns and cities the trend of 0.4 degrees was increased to 0.78 degrees."
>How about giving us some references to this. You seem to be perfectly able to hyperlink if the rest of your article is anything to go by.
>Without a proper reference to who found this and how they did so, your statement is exactly what it seems: wishful thinking.
>Have a look at the first signatory of the statement calling for an audit (it's right-wing christian Senator Cory Bernardi, of burka-banning fame), and you'll see it (and this article) for what it is: a political instrument to cast doubt, delay and smear. The actual quality of the data is of course inconsequential to these non-scientists.
MFS @92, I had a look-see at the Drum article you linked to-
"...a formal request has been made to the Australian Auditor General to audit BoMâs official Australian temperature record and the methods used by BoM to adjust the Australian raw temperature data..."
Seems to me that if the BOM temperature record is okay then there would be no objections to having an audit done. Audits are a fairly common occurrence in Government and business.
Yes, FB, audits are common in government and business. I've provided info to ANAO through a succession of occupations over fifteen years.
But audits are also time-consuming and expensive, so - apart from superficial random sampling - tend only to be done where there is a reasonable basis for considering the data to be suspect. Since the ANAO are not experts in the data they examine in determining the scope of an audit they look for weak systems that are vulnerable to error or fraud. And despite the hand-waving accusations, there is little (no) evidence that BOM's quality assurance or data management systems are weak.
You don't just do an audit because you can or because its "common" - to do so would be a waste of government resources, and may prompt a demand for an audit as to whether ANAO are choosing the targets for their audits appropriately....
there would be no objection to a full and proper audit
Where was this dingbat when various governments wanted to believe "intelligence" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Not much interest in detecting those lies.
Actually, you'll find the BoM, like any government department, participates in a rolling program of audits throughout the year, covering a range of aspects of its business processes.
The idea that the ANAO needs to (or even can) audit processes which are fully documented by a long-standing body of work that continually accumulates in the academic literature is the idea of fools, cranks, maleducates, and otherwise mischievous individuals.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.
The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year.
The main message was quite interesting: His 2008 report concluded that "on the balance of probability", the mainstream science was correct and climate change was a serious issue. Tonight he said (and his update states) that it is now highly probable that the mainstream science is correct. Based on the theory and modelling as known in 2007, real-world observations have invariably underestimated the extent and impact of climate change, to the point where there is nearly no reasonable doubt that we are causing the climate to change. He made an interesting comparison with civil versus criminal law cases. A a civil court has to judge a case based on the balance of probability, and this is how things were in 2008. Now the evidence is akin to what is needed for a conviction in a criminal case: beyond reasonable doubt.
The presenatation and questions were recorded, so with a bit of luck they may become available. They were well worth watching, and it gave a fascinating insight of a world-renowned economist's view on why action needs to be taken. He was a perfect showcase that you don't have to be a scientist to understand what is happening and why the case against AGW does not stand up to scrutiny.
via Chris O'Neill #98; "...Where was this dingbat when various governments wanted to believe "intelligence" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Not much interest in detecting those lies..."
Chris O'Neill have a look, i've been involved in those discussions over at the pprune forum over the years.
On a sorta related subject, recently i were fairly involved in discussions about the inevitable terrorist miss-use of GPS - seems pprune panicked about something and removed many of the threads.
via Vince whirlwind #101; "...The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study....."
.
Vince whirlwind, them lot are a little slow to pick things up. Why, way back in 1926 scientists were writing things like - "glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."
.
Our ever changing Climate through the Ages...
"...Traffic across the Alpine passes, as shown by the transmission of culture, became important about 1800 B.C. when (due to global warming) the Brenner Pass first became traversable, and reached a maximum at the end of the Bronze Age and in the early Hallstatt period, or about 1200-900 B.C. The valley settlements of the late Hallstatt period developed independently apparently in complete isolation, and traffic across the passes was at a minimum ( due to global cooling ) There was a slight revival at the end of the La Tene period and in the early Roman Empire (200 B.C. to A.D. 0 ) but it was not until between A.D. 700 and 1000 that this traffic again developed on a considerable scale (due to global warming) There was a re-advance of the glaciers in the western Alps about A.D. 1300, followed by a retreat to a minimum extent in the fifteenth century ( due to global cooling ) Near the end of the sixteenth century the glaciers advanced rapidly and about 1605 they overran settlements which had been occupied since the beginning of history. About the same time the glaciers advanced in the Eastern Alps, Iceland, where they almost reached the moraines of the late glacial stages, and probably in other parts of the world and the period from 1600 to 1850 has been termed the âlittle ice age.â There were minor maxima of glaciations about 1820 and 1850 since then the glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."
via Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks. First published 1926. Comments in brackets are mine.
via MFS #102; "...Professor Ross Garnaut...view on why action needs to be taken. He was a perfect showcase that you don't have to be a scientist to understand what is happening and why the case against AGW does not stand up to scrutiny..."
Oh, what case? First yer need a case for before yer can entertain a case agianst.
.
by the by, a little 'scrutiny' is probably the last thing Garnaut would want...
You own particular brand of sarcasm consisting of a few words such as:
>"Bolt talking to Garnaut next ? ...Heh"
You might think it's witty and it might make perfect sense in your mind but doesn't exactly state your case clearly... For example, I quite liked [Bolt](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bolt/), and don't see why one would ever contemplate a cartoon character talking to an economics professor... Do you get my point?
Sorry for the intrusion - I've lost the link to the excellent diagram that had sceince method in four frames on the top, and denier method going backwards on the bottom from policy conclusion to denier.
I think it was frankbi's but can't find it - much obliged if one has it at hand
It's clear that the models, and we're dealing with models, have grossly overestimated the sensitivity of temperature to increases in CO2.
I think what's occurred is that there was a warming period from about '75 to the year 2000. It was part of a natural cycle of warming that comes in 25, 30-year cycles. The world has basically stabilised in terms of temperature since about 2000.
There are many, many scientists who actually think we could be entering a cooling phase, and I for one think that is more than likely.
We have stabilised in terms of world temperatures. There is a very powerful natural cycle at work, and if anything we're more likely to see a tendency down in global temperatures, rather than up.
I think that it's time that the upper echelons of science in Australia took up the task of a very public, organised, and coherent rebuttal of the scientific fantasies that permeate much of our politicians' understanding.
Minchin needs a slap-down of humiliating proportions. There is simply no room on a Federal politician's list of responsbilities for the promotion of climatological woo: he might as well say that neurosurgery is hokum and that homeopaths have a better understanding of the appropriate medical treatment...
I must admit that despite putting in a couple of years on ISP support back in some previous dim and distant interglacial, I had no idea that a site could be only partially available before - suffering under the obviously mistaken Yorkian view that it was either up or down.
But for the status to be OK in Belgium, Norway and even Lithuania (fercryinoutloud!) but not so in the UK, France, Ireland, Italy and parts of Holland seems somewhat mystifying to my already feeble comprehension of how the world works.
If anybody has any enlightenment to spare with a reply, please do. But please don't take offence if it takes another week for me to see it.
Given the magnitude of Nick Minchin's brain fart, I was surprised the majority of MSM simply reporting it with no further commentary. I expect this of some sections of the media, but to see even the ABC come up with the sort of headlines and articles they did and not 'balance' his nonsense with an eminent scientists such as Kurt Lambeck saying precisely that he seems to be living in some sort of scientific faery land, was a bit surprising.
It's not as if his nonsense has not been disproved again and again in the last few years.
MFS, I disagree - each version of the article I saw on Minchin's nonsense definitely included a "balancing" component.
From memory they had something like:
- Garnaut has not commented on Minchin
- Garnaut has previously said....etc...
But as you say, actually referring to one of the experts would be better, especially considering Minchin's criticism was that Garnaut is not one of the relevant experts himself.
Chek, it could be a problem with DNS on the internet if it isn't the people at the Scienceblogs end blocking chunks of IP address space.
Next time it happens (hopefully it won't), use a command-line window to "ping scienceblogs.com" and see what it resolves to.
If it does resolve, you can then use a site like http://visualroute.visualware.com/
to see what the path to Scienceblogs is like from various sources including your own.
Chek, sometimes you'll see problems like this because of BGP or routing errors at some point between you and your destination. Similarly, peering issues can mess things up pretty badly; a couple years ago, Sprint and Cogent got into a spat over peering, and refused to let traffic pass directly between their networks. The [Wikipedia article on peering is pretty interesting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering), and it gives you a glimpse of how the system functions.
Vince, thanks for the link to Visualware. Pretty cool... never saw that before. Another interesting site along those lines is the [Internet Health Report](http://www.internetpulse.net/). It shows a constantly-updated table of latency between different Tier 1 networks.
The Australian sees fit to publish this nonsense from Alan Moran, Director, Deregulation Unit, Institute of Public Affairs:
It's astonishing that Ross Garnaut takes himself so seriously in the face of collapsing support in Australia and elsewhere for a carbon tax and other abatement measures ("Regrettably, I was right about climate change", Commentary, 11/3). He says his odyssey around climate change has led him to believe global warming is now occurring on "a balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". And yet, it is clear that there has been no atmospheric warming for the past 15 years.
Can Moran even read?
Garnaut:
My personal intellectual journey over these past four years has moved me from acceptance of the mainstream scienceâs main propositions with the degree of certainty required by the civil lawââa balance of probabilitiesââcloser to the criminal law requirements of âbeyond reasonable doubtâ.
The question âis there a warming trend?â can be answered by statistical analysis of time series data, of a kind that is familiar to economists. I asked two leading econometricians (Trevor Breusch1 and Farshid Vahid2) respected authorities on the analysis of time series, to examine the temperature record from the three authoritative global sources. They concluded that âthe temperatures recorded in most of the past decade lie above the confidence level that is produced by any model that does not allow for a warming trendâ (Garnaut, 2008, ppxvii-xviii and Box 4.1). I asked them to repeat for the Garnaut Climate Change Review Update â 2011 (the Update) the analysis for a period that included data since the Review up to the present, and they have confirmed the earlier conclusion (Breusch and Vahid, 2011 â see also Box 5).
Garnaut again:
The statistical evidence did not stop assertions in the public debate that the earth was cooling, but it does seem to have discouraged at least the numerate and rational from repetition of errors into which they had carelessly fallen.
Whether or not that will continue is uncertain but Garnaut shuts out all evidence that contradicts his preconceived view.
Garnaut:
My early exposure to sceptical and dissenting views identified a number of propositions that seemed to be worthy of exploration. It also identified some that discredited themselves with internal inconsistencies or contradiction of well-established facts.
As I absorbed more of the complexity of the scienceâboth mainstream and scepticalâI began to recognise a number of recurring criticisms of the mainstream for which there were rounded and effective responses in the science.
The end point was an increase in personal confidence in the mainstream science. âOn a balance of probabilitiesâ would understate my current view of the likelihood that the mainstream science is correct.
While we're on the Oz, how's this from regular columnist Christopher Pearson.
I'm expecting the debate over anthropogenic global warming will collapse within the course of the next decade under the weight of its own internal contradictions, to borrow a phrase that so-called scientific Marxism once used in reference to capitalism. It's probable that quite soon the recent mild warming trend will come to be seen as par for the course and in no way a threat to the planet or mankind. The manufacture of statistical artefacts such as the hockey stick, with which a couple of ingenious climatologists hoped to erase from popular and scientific consciousness the whole medieval warm period, will come to be seen for the astonishing confidence tricks they are.
Whether or not that will continue is uncertain but Garnaut shuts out all evidence that contradicts his preconceived view.
Showing that if someone shuts out all evidence that contradicts their preconceived view then the best argument is to accuse opponents of shutting out all evidence that contradicts their preconceived view.
And yet, it is clear that there has been no atmospheric warming for the past 15 years.
I presume that Moran dabbles in the stock market, being the good deregulation-inclined capitalist that he is. I wonder if he would say that there has been no increase in [the price of this commodity](http://i54.tinypic.com/wrfbsi.jpg) over the last 15 years?
If someone has Moran's ear I would dearly love to have him visit this thread so that he can explain any changes in the price over time for this commodity, because I am keen to understand exactly what ability he has in financial trend analysis. If he is able to do so before the end of the month I am even willing to pay him a reasonable fee for his time, if his competence in advice warrants it.
via Bernard J #110; "...I think that it's time that the upper echelons of science in Australia took up the task of a very public, organised, and coherent rebuttal of the scientific fantasies that permeate much of our politicians' understanding. Minchin needs a slap-down of humiliating proportions..."
.
Bernard J, ...so are there 'scientists' offering up a rebuttal to the points Minchin raised ?
via Vince Whirlwind #115; "...Garnaut is not one of the relevant experts himself..."
.
Hmmm, seems to me that those getting paid to push the agenda are the biggest supporters of the AGW hysteria ...a few questions keep going through my mind -
How much is garnaut paid for the reports?
Would Garnaut have gotten the job if he expressed doubts of AGW before he did the 'research' for the reports?
What, if any, carbon trading/banking related financial interests do Garnaut have ?
via foram #119; "...The question âis there a warming trend?â can be answered by statistical analysis of time series data..."
Hmmm, ...so Trevor Breusch and Farshid Vahid interpreted the data that were given to them. Looks to me that Garnaut is using some innocent 'scientists' in an attempt to put some credibility to the discredited recent temperature records.
It would be interesting to have Breusch and Vahid have a further statistical look-see at the records though with urban heat island and recording equipment site changes taken into account.
I suspect he can't mount a decent rebuttal to his opponent's arguments when they are presented with integrity, so he may find it preferable to corrupt them, even if it makes him look rather stupid to the minority in the know.
via foram #121; "... how's this from regular columnist Christopher Pearson - The manufacture of statistical artefacts such as the hockey stick, with which a couple of ingenious climatologists hoped to erase from popular and scientific consciousness the whole medieval warm period, will come to be seen for the astonishing confidence tricks they are Anyone want to make a bet?..."
Hmmm, from what i see more people are becoming more aware of the reality of the hysterical AGW claims. IMO, most people will not ruin the future of Australia just to pander to some neo-religious hysteria.
That's either a lack of reading comprehension, or a deliberate misrepresentation.
Yes, that's precisely what I was saying, with emphasis on the latter option.
Does a newspaper have any obligation to fact check its opinion pages? I mean, seriously. The fact bits, not the opinion bits. This is a genuine question.
Penny Sackett's comments at a Senate Estimates hearing yesterday were interesting, and sad. Will look forward to reading the full transcript on Hansard in a couple of days.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/chief-sc…
So it seems the majority of people in the great southern wide brown land don't want any big fat CO2 tax. Is this because they don't 'believe' the ALP ? :-)
Meanwhile over on the ABC website's Unleashed Alan Moran from the IPA has written a textbook example of a fanatical denier article.
Posted this at the [Drum site](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44426.html):
Moran writes:
"A Galaxy poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs has found that only a third of Australians think the world is warming due to human carbon dioxide emissions."
This is misleading, [his poll didn't ask enough detail](http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1298438674_document_galaxy110…
) to make this finding;
The poll does not distigish between people who think the warming is effected by natural and human causes.
His poll does find that more people believe in AGW than believe its false.
Thanks Jakerman,
Very interesting reading and Moran lied outright - am I surprised.
I guess the IPA must be very despondent at the outcome of the survey. However the depressing thing it is the large numbers who don't accept the science and the large numbers of people who responded to the question about conflicting evidence - a lying furthy in itself.
The question asked for agreement with one of the following options:
Two correlations are immediately apparent:
Age:
18-24 : pro-AGW 52%; pro-denial 19%
50+ : pro-AGW 27%; pro-denial 35%
Education:
No Yr12: pro-AGW 19%; pro-denial 38%
Yr12 : pro-AGW 41%; pro-denial 20%
*** Column header for this one is ambiguous - could actually mean the opposite, in which case they've interviewed people with no Yr12 v. people with at a ratio of over 4:1, which would mean it was an odd sample they found.
Another interesting finding is that people with children only have 19% rate of denial while people without children have a 30% rate of denial.
Some time ago, Mashey already wrote a very detailed examination of the link between age and denial.
Unsurprisingly, there would also appear to be a link between lack of education and denialism.
Is Alan Moran *really* proud of championing a disinformation campaign aimed at the ignorant and the senile?
>*Is Alan Moran really proud of championing a disinformation campaign aimed at the ignorant and the senile?*
He'll take who ever he can get.
BTW, I posted [my comment above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3365…) (plus about four more) 2 hours ago. Nothing past moderation yet.
Wow, Hansard is up - I'm only about 20& of the way through it, but look for Ian MacDonald "majority of the world's scientists don't agree with IPCC" and Sen. Boswell "you're wrong about sea level rise because I rang somebody at BoM and they told me the figure is 0.09mm/Yr not 3.2mm/Yr".
Woah!
"Senator IAN MACDONALDâAll of those scientists have a preconceived view; there are no doubters
amongst the scientists. For example, you have not invited Professor Carter to join."
Yeah, 'cos Bob Carter doesn't have a "preconceived view" or anything....
Haha - I've notice Penny Wong has a bit of spirit...
Senator IAN MACDONALDâAll of those scientists have a preconceived view; there are no doubters
amongst the scientists. For example, you have not invited Professor Carter to join.
Ms SidhuâWe have selected the members of the science advisory panel on the basis of their eminence in
the field. They were selected in consultation with all of the commissioners, including Professor Will Steffen,
who is the science advisor on the commission. One of the prerequisites is that the members of the science
advisory panel are eminent in their field, have published peer reviewed literature and can make a contribution.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâAnd have a particular view. Nobody who has not got a view, that same
view, is on the science panel.
Ms SidhuâThat was not the basis of the selection.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâDo you think it would have been wise, perhaps in the interest of
accountability and openness, to pop on someone who is known not to share the view so that you get a range of
opinion?
Senator WongâScientists were selected on merit, Senator.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâYou talk about maligning people who cannot defend themselves, Senator
Wong; that is a classic.
Senator WongâI am simply saying that the government does not make a decision based on peopleâs
particular views. Advice was taken and the decisions were made on the basis of that.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâYou obviously did not take advice from me. I would have suggested you put onâ
Senator WongâThat is true. On climate change, I confess, I do not take advice from you.
Ah, Ian MacDonald doesn't understand what "pro rata" means:
[MacDonald is persisting with his ongoing attempt at maligning Flannery]
Senator IAN MACDONALDâThat is okay. I guess I can Google him and find out. Tell me, is it true that
he is getting $180,000 salary?
Ms SidhuâThe basis on which the chief commissioner is paid is on an average of three days duty per week
over a course of a year. This equates to, pro rata, about $180,000 per year, yes. That is about equivalent to, for
example, what Professor Garnaut is being paid at the moment for his services, pro rata.
Senator IAN MACDONALDâSo it is much more than anyone sitting at this table is getting paid for a
seven-day-a-week job, ...
Ah, Ian, you're an idiot.
Richard Muller is going to give a talk U.C Berkley. The title of the talk is The Current Status of Climate Change - A Non-Partisan Analysis. The Q & A should be interesting.
Penny Wong being feisty again:
Senator IAN MACDONALDâOkay, but you are providing money to educate the public on their view of
climate science, and I assume from that, in fairness, you will be providing Professor Carter and his literally
thousands of professional colleagues with similar funding so that they can educate the public on their view on
the science?
Senator WongâThere are also people who believe the world is flat, and the government does not fund
that.
jakerman: Good luck getting factual comments on CC related issues through at the ABC. I suggest keeping a record of your comments, the peice you are commenting on etc for your records. You will need them when you end up lodging a complaint for bias by the moderators. If you wish to contribute there you _will_ end up lodging a complaint. Also: if you find all comments mysteriously disappear removing cookies and LSOs restores functionality.
Re Alan Moran's article on the Drum ... maybe it's the ABC's War on Science?
Even if the polling was accurate, what has the beliefs of the public re anthropogenic climate change got to do with whether ACC is an objective fact?
I posted 3 comments (cos' there were lots to comment on) on the article but they are still being moderated.
Clutching at straws there again are we jakerman #3 - There is of course only 1 poll that counts. We will see which way the water-melons fall there soon enough :-)
Vince @ 13. I hope Wong's feistyness is a sign of things to come. Abbott was literally frothing at the mouth (I kid you not) during today's parliamentary debate on the climate tax. He realises that this debate is his one chance at power given that his One Nation bigotry has gone pear shaped. Gillard and company need to take their approach in Parliament on the road over the next 18 months i.e show some f'ing leadership. They occupy the high ground - the economic and scientific support - for action on climate change and they should stick it to Abbott and his supporters from the flat earth society every chance they get. Garnaut and Flannery have been known to have a go as well. Every time one of the flat earthers raises his/her head above the parapet it should be shot off.
While I am not a great fan of Stephen Conroy, he deals effectively with the anti-NBN crowd by taking them on. Whether you support the NBN or not, the debate has elements in common with the climate change debate. Turnbull claims wireless and the NBN are equivalent. As communications experts point out the laws of physics beg to differ. Conroy does not let any anti-science claim by Turnbull or the wireless boosters escape without responding.
You dont win a debate by deserting the high ground for the middle ground which Gillard et al have a tendency to do. Put him under enough pressure over the science and Abbott will self-destruct or the Liberals will split between the Turnbull and One Nation wings as has happened over refugee policy.
In my view what is amazing about the polls (whether stacked by the IPA or a poll with more credibility) is how much support there still is for action on climate change given the almost total lack of leadership on the issue from our politicians and the sustained attack on the science from the flat earthers and their friends in the media.
> Senator WongâThere are also people who believe the world is flat, and the government does not fund that.
> Posted by: Vince whirlwind
Is Penny married..? I think I'm in love...
.
Hmmm, i don't think much of polls me-self, all sorts of errors can creep in, e.g. i never answer a poll and others i've asked wont waste their time with polls. I'm thinkin the people who answer polls are probably a certain type and not representative of the larger population.
...anyway, workin with what we gots here its interesting seeing the age related numbers in the IPA/Galaxy poll. Getting a gist of how the corrupt carbon trading/tax scam will ruin the economy is probably something that comes with age...
.
"...financial mistakes follow a U-shaped pattern, with the cost-minimizing performance occurring around age 53..."
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/brookings_papers_on_economic_activity/summ…
.
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNXeSTOqBsk
Wow: Penny Wong's party won't let her get married.
Unrequited!
Oh woe is me!
Some genius is compiling Curry Quotes.
@ Vince - it would be (mildly) interesting to explore further any correlations between age, education and denial among other things.
I expect there is also a correlation between age and education. (Mass higher education only began with the baby boomers.) Any causal relationship would be more difficult to establish, though not necessarily impossible.
John @22 "Some genius is compiling Curry Quotes".
When you see them all gathered together, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the woman may be mentally unhinged.
Which of course sounds like an attack, but is actually an observation attempting to reconcile the blatant inconsistencies she doesn't just say but writes within days of each other.
The Australian has moved from its war on science to just general fabrication - [A step-by-step guide to manufacturing a story, c/o The Oz](http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/24/a-step-by-step-guide-to-manufacturi…)
The story in The Australian: âCrikey forced to remove fake Abbott storyâ was actually related to a satirical comment (number 502 of 1400) in a post on the Poll Bludger blog site run by William Bowe with Crikey. It wasn't "a Crikey story. Or a Crikey article. Or even a Crikey blog post".
Overington, who wrote The Australian's story, spoke to Crikey before she wrote her story. She was told the comment had been deleted.
@22 On the surface of it and going by her own written record, she certainly appears to have some, err, "issues".
@18. Yeah Binghi, like the banning of CFCs many years ago to protect the ozone layer ruined/destroyed/collapsed/obliterated the world economy, just as the industry said it would.
@Mike
"@18. Yeah Binghi, like the banning of CFCs many years ago to protect the ozone layer ruined/destroyed/collapsed/obliterated the world economy, just as the industry said it would."
I think, this time round, we are being asked to do a little more than change our brand of deodorant. If only it were that simple. ;)
Those comments by Penny Wong are priceless, linking denialism to flat earthers was droll, just droll.
MikeH @ 16 you have brought a fundamental problem of this government in Australia - they are incapable of communicating their ideas - we saw this happen with ETS Mk 1. Abbott could be all over them on this so I hope they have learnt. The thing that may help them is that the Australian public may just think that Abbott is just repeating the same mantra all over again. The government has a very, very difficult balancing act, its got the greens and the fossil fuel industries on opposite sides and then its got Abbott, the man who would destroy Australia in order to win at what he sees as winning.
Wow,
Sorry but Senator Penny Wong (long sigh) is gay otherwise my boot would be on your neck while I ask her out to dinner.
.
.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via #10,
"Senator WongâScientists were selected on merit,..."
"Senator WongâI am simply saying that the government does not make a decision based on peopleâs particular views. Advice was taken and the decisions were made on the basis of that."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
"...the government does not make a decision based on peopleâs particular views..." Hmmm, i wonder how the 'advice' given made a decision on the 'merit' of some...
.
.
.
@27 GSW.
In fact banning CFCs and halocarbons was a very big thing. CFCs were universally used in refrigeration, aerosols, and many other industries, and if you think banning a substance considered essential to refrigeration is not a big deal, you are truly deluded.
The chemical industry around the world vehemently resisted such a ban. The aerosol industry in the US predicted the collapse of their entire industry! The electronics industry predicted unmanageable hardship. Blah blah blah.
So tell me: how are the aerosol, chemical, and refrigeration industries doing these days?
With CO2 we are being asked to be: not wasteful, smart, innovative, and so on regarding our consumption of fossil fuels and waste CO2 production.
Is that honestly beyond your capability? Just too hard?
@29 I think the Flying Wacko is dribbling onto his keyboard.
Binghi, no need to 'wonder' Binghi, either produce a "so called skeptic" with a more merit than the current merit based selection, or accept that Penny is correct.
Vince another [interesting question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3365…) is are are low educated people and elderly more lead by IPA's framing of questions?
People draw strongly on what they were taught in school. The Greenhouse Effect would not have filtered through to most high school science classes until the 1970s at the earliest. By now I'd expect it to be integrated into high school curricula of many subjects, not just science. And presumably primary school curricula as well. (Even up until the mid-1960s it was not uncommon to leave school after what is now called Year 8.)
IMO intelligence is probably not as highly correlated with education as is, say, GDP. (I've not tried to measure either relationship.) Not having had the education to understand climate physics is not the same as not having the intelligence to observe the now evident change in local climates.
In future it could be that older people see the changes more by comparing it with past weather they've experienced; younger people will view erratic weather and increasing heat as the norm. That's all they will experience in their lifetime.
A great point Sou. So often I read in comments threads "When I was in school in the 50's/60's, we learned that blah blah blah so global warming is an OUTRAGEOUS SCAM!"
Part of me also wonders whether the obsessions they have with personality over science stems from classical science education in which figures like Newton are idolised.
Gillrudd's great lie !
Unforgivable.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via jakerman #32,
"...the current merit based selection..."
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
How does that merit based selection work jackerman. Are there some written guidelines somewhere ??? ...Be interesting to see...
.
.
.
.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Mike #30,
"...In fact banning CFCs and halocarbons was a very big thing..."
"...The chemical industry around the world vehemently resisted such a ban. The aerosol industry in the US predicted the collapse of their entire industry! The electronics industry predicted unmanageable hardship..."
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
Got some references to your claims there Mike ?
Methinks a look-see into the background of them claims will show an interesting story...
.
.
.
Binghi, so you couldn't come up with some with comparable let alone obviously more merit.
.
.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via jakerman #32, "...either produce a "so called skeptic" with a more merit than the current merit based selection..."
via jakerman #38, "...so you couldn't come up with some with comparable let alone obviously more merit..."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
Heh, seems ah need to repeat the question...
How does that merit based selection work jackerman. Are there some written guidelines somewhere ??? ...Be interesting to see...
.
.
.
I think there were plenty of places to learn obsession with personality other than science classes. BTW, I learnt far more about Newton from reading books than from classes and I can't recall any exam question that was in any way biographical about Newton. But maybe I didn't have a "classical" science education.
@Flying Binghi,
Having recently been part of a selection process aimed at recruiting people with specific skills to a well-remunerated position, and therefore at risk of attracting post-process queries from disgruntled unsuccessful applicants, I can describe to you generally how it is done in government so that everybody can be satisfied that it is visibly above board.
First, the requirements are defined - what skills are you looking for, and how a person's match against those skills can be judged. A set of criteria are written down, and a group agrees on the wording. Discussion go on at length.
Then, you read some CVs. People who look likely to match our criteria are interviewed.
Then, another round of people sitting down to agree on the interview questions occurs. This goes on for quite a while.
At interview, a series of questions is posed - the questions are aimed at getting the maximum information from the candidate in relation to the stated criteria.
Careful notes are taken.
Post-interview discussion is very careful to include everything positive about the candidates we feel are less likely to succeed, as well as everything negative about the candidates who are an obvious fit for the criteria.
At the end of all this work, it becomes fairly obvious who is going to get the job offers, but the public servants involved can be satisfied that they have made every effort to demonstrate that they are acting with the high level of ethics that are expected of the public service.
It is not surprising that the deniers have trouble understanding that the public service takes every care to be seen to act ethically, because the deniers have demonatrated time and time again that they are dishonest scumbags, spinning their bullshit story to suit their twisted ideology.
"Wow,
Sorry but Senator Penny Wong (long sigh) is gay otherwise my boot would be on your neck while I ask her out to dinner."
Ever seen "Coupling" (the UK version, I suspect the US one is neutered)? Jane is trying to cop off with a gay bloke and he says "I'm gay" and she replies "That's OK. I'm bi-sexual!".
Your news just made me think of that.
;-)
Hey @Jeremy C - not being funny, but Penny Wong being gay shouldn't have any bearing on whether you should invite her out to dinner - I know I'd love to have dinner with her, I do really love her work, even if there's zero chance of me ever again voting for the party that opened the floodgates on illegal immigrants and stuck the boot into Julian Assange.
>*How does that merit based selection work jackerman.*
Use what ever merit scale you think most appropriate to the task, ie competence in climate science, policy development, tax system, etc. Then show how your selection is superior to that of those you want to criticize.
@37 Yes indeed, if you look into the background claims it does show an interesting story Binghi.
An interesting story of how from its New York Times newspaper ad in 1975 right through to the 1986, Du Pont (the world's largest manufacturer of CFCs) was trying to muddy the waters in the face of sustained, overwhelming, and undeniable scientific evidence of CFC-induced ozone depletion. Of course, they changed their mind once they had patented a replacement for CFCs. "Oh did we say CFCs weren't hurting the ozone layer? Oh no we didn't say that. We meant to say they are hurting the ozone layer. Now come buy our replacement."
A story of how DuPont in 1975 told a US Senate hearing that restrictions on ozone disruption would cause "tremendous economic dislocation".
The list goes on Binghi, but I'm kinda tired of doing your research for you.
Yes, FB it does show an interesting story. Vested interests lying to protect those interests to the detriment of the environment, obfuscation, displacement - everything that we see with AGW. Mother Jones has a [nice backgrounder](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AucDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=mo…) from 1989.
And what do we see?
Industries claiming no alternatives, despite alternatives? Emphasising scientific uncertainty? What about the role of clouds? Delay and denial. Whines that unilateral change can make no difference, but will bankrupt the industry.
Yep, its got everything we are all to familiar with for the climate change denialosphere.
The only thing Ozone denial had than AGW denial doesn't is a topless picture of 1920's dancer Josephine Baker half way through....
[Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=1)
>An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.
@47. Yeah Dave, but you do realise that it's just another conspiracy to cover up the conspiracies, don't you? ;)
The tinfoil hat brigade will be out in force on this one. Again.
@48 Mike. But that means Inhofe's in on the conspiracy. He initiated it ;)
Oops. Backfired on the Senator.
.
Got some references to your claims there Mike ?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Mike #37
"...The list goes on Binghi, but I'm kinda tired of doing your research for you..."
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Heh, your the one making the claims 'Mike' - YOU provide the links/source references.
.
.
.
.
"...Senator Wong â Scientists were selected on merit..."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Vince Whirlwind #41, "...Having recently been part of a selection process aimed at recruiting people with specific skills to a well-remunerated position..."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Vince Whirlwind, is this what happened reference to what Minister Wong were commenting on ?
Be interesting to look into this further...
.
.
.
I like [this comment at Slashdot](http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2012334&cid=35311784) that sneakily describes Watts' failure as a success. You can tell it's on purpose because it switches back and forth between what Watts hoped to find and what was actually found (by people not named Watts). The next comment is just as funny, too, although it's unintentional humour.
Brilliant!
@45 and @46 I believe it was a similar story with acid rain, which was a serious concern in eastern Canada and US in the 1970s-80s (and not entirely gone now). I don't know if they actually denied there was a problem, but I believe industry argues that pollution controls would destroy the economy - only they didn't.
.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Binghi #51, "Be interesting to look into this further..."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Well off you go. Let us know what you discover.
.
.
.
Flying Binghi, on what grounds to you think scientists should be recruited?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Holly Stick #53,
@45 and @46 I believe it was a similar story with acid rain
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
Holly Stick, methinks yer combining different subjects there. As far as i remember there were not much objections from us common people to controls attempting to stop the so-called acid rains - it is a fairly diverse catch-all though, eg. banning wood fired heaters/stoves in some city's to get rid of smog and health problems is also linked to acid rain by some. Just because somebody looks at the anthropogenic global warming 'science' claims and finds overblown hysteria don't necessarily mean that they disagree with the 'science' of acid rain or ozone - looking at the activist hysteria and politics of acid rain and ozone is a whole different subject though.
One thing i notes in this blog is the attempt by some to link many different subjects to the one 'belief' or side. The real world is far different. eg, whilst i think the global warming claims are overblown hysteria i'm a firm believer of a soon to arrive 'peak oil'. IMO we need much research into viable oil alternatives.
.
.
.
Holly'll appreciate the irony that some geoengineers actually want to inject a gajillion tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere then.
Acid rain, acid schmain! By putting the aerosols back that we stupidly removed with those short-sighted so-called "clean air" acts, we can fix this overblown problem without crippling our economies.
CAGW-be-gone!
:-)
Of course, the fact that its the intellectual equivalent of saying, "There are no consequences to overeating, thanks to the miracle of liposuction", doesn't seem to register...
.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Binghi #56, "Just because somebody looks at the anthropogenic global warming 'science' claims and finds overblown hysteria don't necessarily mean that they disagree with the 'science' of acid rain or ozone - looking at the activist hysteria and politics of acid rain and ozone is a whole different subject though. "
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You really are just a dumb ol' hill farmer aint you. Wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
.
.
.
Wot ? Cat got my tongue again Tim ? You guys are 'still winning'. So, why are you still scared of little ole Billy Bob Hall.
>i'm a firm believer of a soon to arrive 'peak oil'. IMO we need much research into viable oil alternatives.
Alarmist.
@35 John
"When I was in school in the 50's/60's, we learned that blah blah blah so global warming is an OUTRAGEOUS SCAM!"
Interesting. I live in Canada and a lot of older people 55+ like me say.
"Winters are not like they used to be. We don't have the snow we used to" and "It's seldom much more that -25C (~13F). Looks like global warming is having an effect."
I don't know about the polls but most older people I know accept AGW, (well global warming anyway)as a fact.
@ 56
"Holly Stick, methinks yer combining different subjects there. As far as i remember there were not much objections from us common people to controls attempting to stop the so-called acid rains - it is a fairly diverse catch-all though, eg. banning wood fired heaters/stoves in some city's to get rid of smog and health problems is also linked to acid rain by some."
Are you Australian?
I live in Canada and have friends in Europe. Acid rain was destroying large amounts of our forests and turning large numbers of lakes in Eastern Canada acidic enough to kill off fish etc. It was not some simple problem with some wood burning stoves (Newcastle in Australia?)
Instead we were talking about millions of hectares of land and probably 100's of thousands of hectares of lakes and rivers in Canada alone--just one large lake in Ontario Canada (Simcoe)has an area of over 700 hectares and we have several thousand lakes in the province let alone the country.
Acid rain was/is a very nasty threat. Heck, a few wood stoves have no real effect compared to coal-fired generator plants up-wind in Ohio.
The Black Forest in Germany was/is similarly endangered.
jrk writes:
>I don't know about the polls but most older people I know accept AGW, (well global warming anyway)as a fact.
Yep, the IPA questionnaire and interpretation of data [is misleading](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3365…).
Jkr, I wasn't generalising all older people, I meant that's what I read on denial blogs.
.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via John #63, "...that's what I read on denial blogs..."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Whats a "denial blog" John ?
.
.
.
I've not done any surveys, but a lot of people I know who are 60 plus agree the climate is changing, including over 90s.
I suspect the correlations are not clear cut - ie voting preference / age / education / income bracket etc - any and all of which could influence a person's opinion.
I don't think those over 80 and certainly not those over 90 years of age should be burdened too much by the idea of AGW. They've had enough to deal with in their life time and should be allowed to enjoy their final years :)
Flying Binghi: Watts is a denial blog, you john. What you shave in the morning is a denial Troll.
Binghi @ 51:
"Be interesting to look into this further"
You completely missed my point.
Public Service selection processes - especially for well-remunerated positions - are conducted with the idea of the entire process being subjected to a subsequent FOI request.
So - *you* suspect wrongdoing in others, because *you* are dishonest yourself.
Your suspicion bears no relation to reality and you make no attempt to base your opinions on an analysis of available facts.
Your frame of reference - (presumably you are very familiar with the world of dishonest tradies over-quoting for a job and under-supplying for it) - is not of any use to understanding the highly ethical process of the Australian Public Service.
Still waiting for an answer, FB.
On what grounds should the new chief scientist be recruited if not merit? Perhaps by how many angry, incomprehensible comments they leave at Nova's?
.
My previous posts;
"How does that merit based selection work jackerman. Are there some written guidelines somewhere ??? ...Be interesting to see..."
"Vince Whirlwind, is this what happened reference to what Minister Wong were commenting on ?
Be interesting to look into this further..."
.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Vince Whirlwind #67; "...So - you suspect wrongdoing in others, because you are dishonest yourself. Your suspicion bears no relation to reality and you make no attempt to base your opinions on an analysis of available facts.
Your frame of reference - (presumably you are very familiar with the world of dishonest tradies over-quoting for a job and under-supplying for it) - is not of any use to understanding the highly ethical process of the Australian Public Service..."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
Vince Whirlwind, instead of beating around the bush if yer caint answer me simple question perhaps best leave it to jackerman.
.
.
.
.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via John #55; "...Flying Binghi, on what grounds to you think scientists should be recruited?..."
via John #68; "...Still waiting for an answer, FB. On what grounds should the new chief scientist be recruited if not merit?..."
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.
via #10; "... members of the science advisory panel..."
.
.
.
Flapping binghi.
Seriously, what is with the gazillion Os and the carriage return-dots? Your posts are incoherent as a consequence of your poor formatting - and in no small part due to your poor understanding of science...
Are you really as semi-literate as you appear to be?
This [article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-…) just appeared on the Guardian's online science pages.
>Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?
with the following tag line:
>The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming
I'd be interested in what other people think if they get time to look at it.
@Binghi,
If you have questions about APS selection processes, can I suggest you contact the APSC? They will have the information you require.
Back to the Estimates Hansard, I found this bit:
Jeremy C wrote:
>>The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the
>> definitive truth about global warming
>
> I'd be interested in what other people think if they get
> time to look at it.
Judith Curry and Richard Muller are involved, so I'm not optimistic.
See [here](http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/14/exclusive-richard-muller-charles-…) and [here](http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/13/confusing-future-presidents-part-…) and [here](http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/14/confusing-future-presidents-part-…)
[Jeremy C](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3391…).
I suspect that the Berkeley Earth project is an exercise in wheel reinvention.
Muller thinks that he has the edge because he is starting with the concept of an elipse with two foci, rather than just a plain circle... more is better, after all.
When all is done and dusted, hoever, he is likely to find himself remarking that the original inventors had it right - and that the elipse works best when the two foci coincide...
Rob OC, this is enough for me: [Financial Support](http://berkeleyearth.org/donors) for the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project is provided by [Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation](http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4043).
jakerman,
I know; Koch's role is covered in the first link in my earlier post (apologies if you don't read Romm's site).
Thanks Rob, yese I got the info from your link, I mean to give you a H/T.
.
Dang! this dumb ol barely literate hill farmer me seems to ask some 'inconvenient' questions at times...Heh...
(i blame it on the Northern Territory edumacachion system)
.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
via Vince whirlwind #72; "...If you have questions about APS selection processes, can I suggest you contact the APSC? They will have the information you require. Back to the Estimates Hansard, I found this bit:..."
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Vince whirlwind, while you were in Hansard i though yer mighta given us the references to job selection criteria - seems i'm not the only one questioning things...
.
.
.
I see now. Flying Binghi is also anti-intellectual and is trolling because of a perceived inferiority complex.
No, it looks like he is inferior.
And nothing complex either.
@Binghi, again, you will get that information from the APSC. You will not get it from Hansard.
Is there any danger of you actually understanding any of this sometime soon?
Speaking of the [brothers Koch](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3392…), it seems that they've taken a leaf out of the Australian Coalition's Howard Years book, with respect to trying to [whittle away basic human rights](http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3151151.htm). Tony Abbott must be watching with hands deep in pockets - the idea of permanently sending the progressive side of politics to Purgatory must be a Conservative's wet dream.
Imagine what such a move could do for stalling action on emissions reduction, if it could gather the momentum spread beyond Wisconsin...
On a different matter, I wonder how many more winters it will take until the Hundson bay does not reach its annual [maximum freezing asymptote](http://i54.tinypic.com/f3ch7l.jpg)?
A random question.
Does anyone know anything about the tree on the front cover of Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" - a book that's crying out for the hand of a decent editor, by the way...
Bernard, can you post a link? [The book's website](http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/) shows a cover with a pic of mountains and a lake.
[This one](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp…) has a tree.
Yep, Dave R has it.
I'm sure that I have seen that tree before, and I'm trying to place where.
Given the image is small and a little indistinct, it looks just like many of the windswept trees (hawthorn?) atop hills on Dartmoor or Yorkshire hills.
Someone here must have the book. What's the picture credit line say?
Cover design: Holly MacDonald | Cover photograph: Photolibrary
Yes, I suspected hawthorn. In particular I was wondering if it was a clone of the Glastonbury thorn, and if not, whether it had any particular mythological background.
jakerman on the Roy Spencer Fits An Elephant thread, replying here because it's OT:
> I lived through the false and bigotted claims made about my then religion that came into popular discourse with a nortorious case in Australia;
You too? Sounds like you also escaped the Sevvy subculture :-)
Oops! Almost missed your answer BJ.
You could ask her. This might well be her.
A new smear and innuendo piece on the BoM data quality (we knew this was in the pipeline) in ABC's The Drum [today](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44734.html). I have put up a comment which I copy below.
>"Researchers have found that BoM has adjusted the raw data upwards by 40 per cent for rural temperatures and by 70 per cent for the urban temperatures. This means that a temperature trend of 0.6 degrees for rural locations was increased to 0.85 degrees while in the towns and cities the trend of 0.4 degrees was increased to 0.78 degrees."
>How about giving us some references to this. You seem to be perfectly able to hyperlink if the rest of your article is anything to go by.
>Without a proper reference to who found this and how they did so, your statement is exactly what it seems: wishful thinking.
>Have a look at the first signatory of the statement calling for an audit (it's right-wing christian Senator Cory Bernardi, of burka-banning fame), and you'll see it (and this article) for what it is: a political instrument to cast doubt, delay and smear. The actual quality of the data is of course inconsequential to these non-scientists.
.
MFS @92, I had a look-see at the Drum article you linked to-
"...a formal request has been made to the Australian Auditor General to audit BoMâs official Australian temperature record and the methods used by BoM to adjust the Australian raw temperature data..."
Seems to me that if the BOM temperature record is okay then there would be no objections to having an audit done. Audits are a fairly common occurrence in Government and business.
.
.
.
As with the New Zealand beatup, this one has all the hallmarks of a simple delaying tactic. I doubt the truth matters one iota to senator Bernardi.
.
MFS @94, then, again, there would be no objection to a full and proper audit unless there is something to hide...
.
.
.
Or unless action was urgent and the audit designed to stall the process...
Yes, FB, audits are common in government and business. I've provided info to ANAO through a succession of occupations over fifteen years.
But audits are also time-consuming and expensive, so - apart from superficial random sampling - tend only to be done where there is a reasonable basis for considering the data to be suspect. Since the ANAO are not experts in the data they examine in determining the scope of an audit they look for weak systems that are vulnerable to error or fraud. And despite the hand-waving accusations, there is little (no) evidence that BOM's quality assurance or data management systems are weak.
You don't just do an audit because you can or because its "common" - to do so would be a waste of government resources, and may prompt a demand for an audit as to whether ANAO are choosing the targets for their audits appropriately....
Lying dingbat:
Where was this dingbat when various governments wanted to believe "intelligence" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Not much interest in detecting those lies.
FB, we need to audit those calling for delays in carbon mitigation, if they are not hiding anything they should have no complaints.
Can we audit you FB?
Actually, you'll find the BoM, like any government department, participates in a rolling program of audits throughout the year, covering a range of aspects of its business processes.
The idea that the ANAO needs to (or even can) audit processes which are fully documented by a long-standing body of work that continually accumulates in the academic literature is the idea of fools, cranks, maleducates, and otherwise mischievous individuals.
How will The Australian attempt to spin this one:
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.
The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year.
Professor Ross Garnaut delivered 2011 [Update Paper 5](http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up5-key-point…), an update to his 2008 report on climate change, at the University of Tasmania in Hobart tonight.
The main message was quite interesting: His 2008 report concluded that "on the balance of probability", the mainstream science was correct and climate change was a serious issue. Tonight he said (and his update states) that it is now highly probable that the mainstream science is correct. Based on the theory and modelling as known in 2007, real-world observations have invariably underestimated the extent and impact of climate change, to the point where there is nearly no reasonable doubt that we are causing the climate to change. He made an interesting comparison with civil versus criminal law cases. A a civil court has to judge a case based on the balance of probability, and this is how things were in 2008. Now the evidence is akin to what is needed for a conviction in a criminal case: beyond reasonable doubt.
The presenatation and questions were recorded, so with a bit of luck they may become available. They were well worth watching, and it gave a fascinating insight of a world-renowned economist's view on why action needs to be taken. He was a perfect showcase that you don't have to be a scientist to understand what is happening and why the case against AGW does not stand up to scrutiny.
.
via Chris O'Neill #98; "...Where was this dingbat when various governments wanted to believe "intelligence" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Not much interest in detecting those lies..."
Chris O'Neill have a look, i've been involved in those discussions over at the pprune forum over the years.
On a sorta related subject, recently i were fairly involved in discussions about the inevitable terrorist miss-use of GPS - seems pprune panicked about something and removed many of the threads.
.
.
.
.
via Vince whirlwind #101; "...The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study....."
.
Vince whirlwind, them lot are a little slow to pick things up. Why, way back in 1926 scientists were writing things like - "glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."
.
Our ever changing Climate through the Ages...
"...Traffic across the Alpine passes, as shown by the transmission of culture, became important about 1800 B.C. when (due to global warming) the Brenner Pass first became traversable, and reached a maximum at the end of the Bronze Age and in the early Hallstatt period, or about 1200-900 B.C. The valley settlements of the late Hallstatt period developed independently apparently in complete isolation, and traffic across the passes was at a minimum ( due to global cooling ) There was a slight revival at the end of the La Tene period and in the early Roman Empire (200 B.C. to A.D. 0 ) but it was not until between A.D. 700 and 1000 that this traffic again developed on a considerable scale (due to global warming) There was a re-advance of the glaciers in the western Alps about A.D. 1300, followed by a retreat to a minimum extent in the fifteenth century ( due to global cooling ) Near the end of the sixteenth century the glaciers advanced rapidly and about 1605 they overran settlements which had been occupied since the beginning of history. About the same time the glaciers advanced in the Eastern Alps, Iceland, where they almost reached the moraines of the late glacial stages, and probably in other parts of the world and the period from 1600 to 1850 has been termed the âlittle ice age.â There were minor maxima of glaciations about 1820 and 1850 since then the glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."
via Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks. First published 1926. Comments in brackets are mine.
.
.
.
.
via MFS #102; "...Professor Ross Garnaut...view on why action needs to be taken. He was a perfect showcase that you don't have to be a scientist to understand what is happening and why the case against AGW does not stand up to scrutiny..."
Oh, what case? First yer need a case for before yer can entertain a case agianst.
.
by the by, a little 'scrutiny' is probably the last thing Garnaut would want...
via James Delingpole -
Aussie sceptics destroy EU carbon commissioner
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079237/aussie-scep…
.
Bolt talking to Garnaut next ? ...Heh
.
.
.
FB:
>"Oh, what case? First yer need a case for before yer can entertain a case agianst."
Why don't you read [the paper](http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up5-the-scien…), which covers precisely this topic, and come up with some insight, instead of spouting nonsensical half-arguments?
You own particular brand of sarcasm consisting of a few words such as:
>"Bolt talking to Garnaut next ? ...Heh"
You might think it's witty and it might make perfect sense in your mind but doesn't exactly state your case clearly... For example, I quite liked [Bolt](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bolt/), and don't see why one would ever contemplate a cartoon character talking to an economics professor... Do you get my point?
>Why don't you read the paper, which covers precisely this topic, and come up with some insight, instead of spouting nonsensical half-arguments?
Come now MFS, as much as I try I can't see anything even approaching half and argument in FB's drivel.
He's just posting random extracts from his ideological Commissars.
Sorry for the intrusion - I've lost the link to the excellent diagram that had sceince method in four frames on the top, and denier method going backwards on the bottom from policy conclusion to denier.
I think it was frankbi's but can't find it - much obliged if one has it at hand
ah-ah - Google got me it - was was indeed Frank's work - I need to flog a few deniers with it :)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6603/30006774.png
[DaveMcRae](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3450…)
Your link to Frank's link to that image is apposite.
[Nich Minchin had a brain vomit yesterday](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/11/3161489.htm?section=busin…), where he said:
I think that it's time that the upper echelons of science in Australia took up the task of a very public, organised, and coherent rebuttal of the scientific fantasies that permeate much of our politicians' understanding.
Minchin needs a slap-down of humiliating proportions. There is simply no room on a Federal politician's list of responsbilities for the promotion of climatological woo: he might as well say that neurosurgery is hokum and that homeopaths have a better understanding of the appropriate medical treatment...
How seriously the daily fail take their science reporting:
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/supermoon-caused-earthquake-total-utte…
Hi y'all.
Scienceblogs has been unavailable much of this week to me in the UK, so it's good to be reconnected to an outpost of sanity again.
After a couple of days, I used [this tool](http://just-ping.com/index.php?vh=scienceblogs.com&c=don_ab_just-ping&s…) and could see it was a regional problem, usually getting results like [this](http://s1109.photobucket.com/albums/h425/chek17/)
I must admit that despite putting in a couple of years on ISP support back in some previous dim and distant interglacial, I had no idea that a site could be only partially available before - suffering under the obviously mistaken Yorkian view that it was either up or down.
But for the status to be OK in Belgium, Norway and even Lithuania (fercryinoutloud!) but not so in the UK, France, Ireland, Italy and parts of Holland seems somewhat mystifying to my already feeble comprehension of how the world works.
If anybody has any enlightenment to spare with a reply, please do. But please don't take offence if it takes another week for me to see it.
Bernard,
Given the magnitude of Nick Minchin's brain fart, I was surprised the majority of MSM simply reporting it with no further commentary. I expect this of some sections of the media, but to see even the ABC come up with the sort of headlines and articles they did and not 'balance' his nonsense with an eminent scientists such as Kurt Lambeck saying precisely that he seems to be living in some sort of scientific faery land, was a bit surprising.
It's not as if his nonsense has not been disproved again and again in the last few years.
The ABC (7.30 report) is pushing the view that a lot of people in Australia will become sceptical of the impact of global warming because the drought has broken in eastern states.
MFS, I disagree - each version of the article I saw on Minchin's nonsense definitely included a "balancing" component.
From memory they had something like:
- Garnaut has not commented on Minchin
- Garnaut has previously said....etc...
But as you say, actually referring to one of the experts would be better, especially considering Minchin's criticism was that Garnaut is not one of the relevant experts himself.
Chek, it could be a problem with DNS on the internet if it isn't the people at the Scienceblogs end blocking chunks of IP address space.
Next time it happens (hopefully it won't), use a command-line window to "ping scienceblogs.com" and see what it resolves to.
If it does resolve, you can then use a site like http://visualroute.visualware.com/
to see what the path to Scienceblogs is like from various sources including your own.
@ 114 Chris O'Neill
That's yellow journalism for you.
Chek, sometimes you'll see problems like this because of BGP or routing errors at some point between you and your destination. Similarly, peering issues can mess things up pretty badly; a couple years ago, Sprint and Cogent got into a spat over peering, and refused to let traffic pass directly between their networks. The [Wikipedia article on peering is pretty interesting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering), and it gives you a glimpse of how the system functions.
Vince, thanks for the link to Visualware. Pretty cool... never saw that before. Another interesting site along those lines is the [Internet Health Report](http://www.internetpulse.net/). It shows a constantly-updated table of latency between different Tier 1 networks.
The Australian sees fit to publish this nonsense from Alan Moran, Director, Deregulation Unit, Institute of Public Affairs:
Can Moran even read?
Garnaut:
Garnaut again:
Wonder if Moran will publish a retraction?
Moran cont'd:
Garnaut:
While we're on the Oz, how's this from regular columnist Christopher Pearson.
Anyone want to make a bet?
Retrograde amnesia will be the general approach.
When challenged? Oh, I didn't really mean thaa-aat.
Showing that if someone shuts out all evidence that contradicts their preconceived view then the best argument is to accuse opponents of shutting out all evidence that contradicts their preconceived view.
So, [as foram notes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/open_thread_59.php#comment-3459…), Alan Moran says:
I presume that Moran dabbles in the stock market, being the good deregulation-inclined capitalist that he is. I wonder if he would say that there has been no increase in [the price of this commodity](http://i54.tinypic.com/wrfbsi.jpg) over the last 15 years?
If someone has Moran's ear I would dearly love to have him visit this thread so that he can explain any changes in the price over time for this commodity, because I am keen to understand exactly what ability he has in financial trend analysis. If he is able to do so before the end of the month I am even willing to pay him a reasonable fee for his time, if his competence in advice warrants it.
.
via Bernard J #110; "...I think that it's time that the upper echelons of science in Australia took up the task of a very public, organised, and coherent rebuttal of the scientific fantasies that permeate much of our politicians' understanding. Minchin needs a slap-down of humiliating proportions..."
.
Bernard J, ...so are there 'scientists' offering up a rebuttal to the points Minchin raised ?
.
.
.
.
via Vince Whirlwind #115; "...Garnaut is not one of the relevant experts himself..."
.
Hmmm, seems to me that those getting paid to push the agenda are the biggest supporters of the AGW hysteria ...a few questions keep going through my mind -
How much is garnaut paid for the reports?
Would Garnaut have gotten the job if he expressed doubts of AGW before he did the 'research' for the reports?
What, if any, carbon trading/banking related financial interests do Garnaut have ?
.
.
.
Did anyone hear an annoying buzzing noise?
.
via foram #119; "...The question âis there a warming trend?â can be answered by statistical analysis of time series data..."
Hmmm, ...so Trevor Breusch and Farshid Vahid interpreted the data that were given to them. Looks to me that Garnaut is using some innocent 'scientists' in an attempt to put some credibility to the discredited recent temperature records.
It would be interesting to have Breusch and Vahid have a further statistical look-see at the records though with urban heat island and recording equipment site changes taken into account.
.
.
.
> Did anyone hear an annoying buzzing noise?
Yep. It almost sounded like words full of nonsense, but that was probably just pareidolia at work.
> Can Moran even read?
I'm sure he can read.
I suspect he can't mount a decent rebuttal to his opponent's arguments when they are presented with integrity, so he may find it preferable to corrupt them, even if it makes him look rather stupid to the minority in the know.
.
via foram #120; "...inconsistencies or contradiction of well-established facts..."
Heh, sorta like the way that the climate clowns attempted to remove the warmer then today medieval warm period from their 'hockey stick' graph...
.
.
.
.
via foram #121; "... how's this from regular columnist Christopher Pearson - The manufacture of statistical artefacts such as the hockey stick, with which a couple of ingenious climatologists hoped to erase from popular and scientific consciousness the whole medieval warm period, will come to be seen for the astonishing confidence tricks they are Anyone want to make a bet?..."
Hmmm, from what i see more people are becoming more aware of the reality of the hysterical AGW claims. IMO, most people will not ruin the future of Australia just to pander to some neo-religious hysteria.
.
.
.
Lotharsson,
You're being too kind. Too paraphrase:
Garnaut: My confidence in the science has increased.
Moran: Garnaut says his confidence in the science has decreased.
That's either a lack of reading comprehension, or a deliberate misrepresentation.
> That's either a lack of reading comprehension, or a deliberate misrepresentation.
Yes, that's precisely what I was saying, with emphasis on the latter option.
Sorry, should be Lotharsson
... and "to paraphrase"
Maybe, like me, he just doesn't check what he writes, eh?
Does a newspaper have any obligation to fact check its opinion pages? I mean, seriously. The fact bits, not the opinion bits. This is a genuine question.
Here is Nova's other half, David Evans, [attempting some maths.](http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/evans-david/aust-carbon-temps.pdf)
I love how he divides everything by 10 because,
>Skeptics say:... The temperature increase due to increased carbon dioxide levels is about one tenth of what the IPCC say.
Which of course means Evans's equation doesn't work for the temperature rise we've already observed.