The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Finkelstein, AGW and the Coalition > Comments

Finkelstein, AGW and the Coalition : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 24/7/2012

It is understandable that the Coalition should support Finkelstein.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Anthony, thanks for stating your credentials as a 'climate denialist'.
I'll do likewise - I'm a warmist along with 98% of the scientific establishment. But it's great to read your opinion in this here opinion blog. You as I have a right to our own opinions on global warming but should we expect parliament and indeed the mainstream press to take on our opinions?

I urge you to read, as I have, 'Scientific American' on the subject of global warming (its advisory board is some 40 professors and CEO's from US universities such as Harvard and Berkley). It is just one of the myriad peer reviewed science journals that publish the truth of GW and dire warnings of the consequences of 'business as usual' scenarios.

Do you, a lawye) expect us to believe that the 'evidence' presented by your disparate band of unqualified sceptics carries equal weight to the scientific journals? Should our leaders act on denialists' opinions rather than the facts established by science?

'The Australian' evidently thinks so because it censors out factual articles about GW.

All power to Finkelstein; his suggested system of an oversight panel of judiciary may prevent propaganda /opinion being presented as 'analysis of facts' in the likes of 'The Aus'(i.e. Rupert.
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 9:19:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If only 98% of climate scientists agree with the theory of global warming then the science isn't settled.

Science has never been about consensus.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 9:54:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Roses1,

Here's a timely article on the subject:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/dick-smith-writes-scathing-letter-to-news-ltd/4149136
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 10:04:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"98% of the scientific establishment" I thought it was 97%! Where did the 98% come from? At least get your exaggerations correct.

As for the scandalous Doran Zimmerman 'survey' from whence the fake 97% figure came from, can you really base a justification for AGW on this:

"a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with."

See also this link for a comprehensive demolition of the AGW 'consensus':

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/#more-60090

If you are going to convince the vast majority of people, scientists and otherwise, that AGW is real then the consensus and authority and the precautionary principle arguments will not cut it.

Do better ladies.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 10:25:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Can't you do better than "What's Up Doc"? - isn't that the guy who's qualified to be a weather presenter?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 10:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Ms Poirot; I had forgotten the ad hom which rounds out the various 'evidence' in the AGW supporter's quiver.

Anthony Watts is a nice guy; but the point is what he says about the Doran 'paper' and its consensus, which you have ignored.

Now, Ms Poirot, you appear to be a thoughtful lass, are you really saying that you are content for your position on AGW to be nourished by an argument, consensus, which is fundamentally unscientific?
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:08:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It will no doubt surprise the denial brigade that the US, where there has been a summer long series of "extreme weather events' have changed their belief of AGW to a 70% acceptance.
What will it take Australians to follow suit?
Posted by sarnian, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:11:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1 and Poirot
as you have both been told many times now, expert consensus in and of itself is essentially meaningless. There is nothing in science to suggest that expert opinion, as such, caries any weight. What independently verified forecasting track record can climate science point to?

Certainly the consensus is that AGW is occuring, but without some basic and obvious indication that the consensus is of any use - notably that forecasting track record - there is plenty of room for doubt and every reason to question the "experts". In any case a good part of the subject matter is strictly in business not in science at all (the study of forecasting systems is a business subject, its in marketing).

So now we come to the point of the article. The point is that an incident (or series of incidents) that occured in the UK was used as an excuse to review the activites of the media here. But the main agenda for reviewing the media here was that sections of it actually questioned the climate orthodoxy.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, the point is cdertainly worth making.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:15:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony. A particularly thoughtfull and intriguing analysis of the alternative possible strategies that may be at play in the coalition responses to the various AGW policy directions. Most enjoyable.
Cohenite. Trying to speak reasonably to those still stuck in the 97/98 % of scientist 'consensus' is like...like... Gee, 'p...ing in the wind' is the only analogy that come readily to the mind. Admirable to keep trying tho.
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:24:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There never was a consensus on AGW. The US has taken no action, because there is no scientific basis of support for it. A petition signed by 31,000 scientists asked the US Senate to take no action in the face of this absence of any scientific justification.

The kindest scientific description I have seen is that it is “plausible, but not measurable”

There is no measurable effect of human activity on global climate.

Despite the outlay of in excess of $90 bn, no scientific basis for assertion of AGW has been established.

Climate has conformed to natural cycles, with no unusual variation, which could be attributed to human emissions.

The AGW scam is dead in the water. The small number of scientists, who support the scam, have been exposed by the Climategate emails.

The media reports have dropped off, lately, and the comments of the public, on those that appear, are anti-AGW.

Top scientists are now declaring that action on AGW is unjustifiable.

There is no reason to support the Finkelstein report. It is toxic.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:40:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 "Climategate" e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda.”

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7mvumju

So much for the AGW “consensus”, asserted by the delusional.

Germany is a leader in renewable energy. The cost loaded on to householders has resulted in 700,000 German households having their power cut off.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:55:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite,

You are using a flawed argument.

If we decided that we needed 100% agreement on everything before taking action we'd never do anything. There are still scientists who dispute the correlation of smoking with lung cancer, yet most people accept it.

Science has never been about absolute certainty, a theory stands as the best explanation until it is disproven. But a lack of absolute certainty does not mean that a theory is inherently wrong. And when you have the vast majority of scientists in a field agreeing on a theory, you need a really good argument to refute it. So far there have been no really good arguments to refute the current position on AGW, just...perhaps there will be in the future, who knows. At the moment I'm convinced by the AGW argument - in my mind it stacks up pretty comprehensively.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 2:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phil, you must have some science on which to base your belief.

Let us have the reference to the scientific measurement of the effect of human emissions on global climate.

The dishonesty of the IPCC is well established, so I hope you are not basing your belief on their unsupported assertion that it is “very likely”.

Since there is no measurable effect of human emissions on climate, this is the best that this purveyor of the AGW myth is able to offer. They gave this unscientific guess a 90% certainty, and said that the scientific proof was imminent.

There were seven independent scientists who supported this guess. Two later withdrew their support.

Fifty years ago, Britain’s top physicist said that he was 90% certain that his team were right on the brink of producing nuclear fusion. He was wrong.

After 5 years of failure to produce the promised science, it is fair to say that the IPCC is wrong.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 3:10:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm very firmly in favour of an open and widely reported official enquiry.
If that enquiry simply validates the denials emanating from sections of a, [methinks thou dos't protest too much,] private media sector/enterprise, then that would be no bad thing?
And I would also support an official body, providing the essential oversight, that ought to include protecting our current freedom of speech, from fraudulent/spurious or vexatious claims or liabilities.
Any official oversight ought to include obliging "opinion" providers, to validate their "facts," before revealing or publishing them.
Indeed, the new body must come with enough punitive teeth, so as to prevent those things now revealed, with regard to the British media!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 3:34:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only the gullible deny that man made gw is a faith based position with only pseudo science and politics backing it. Thankfully the public have woken up despite billions wasted by the scam industry.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 3:45:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You are using a flawed argument."

No, I am not. Did you read the links in the article to recent studies which DISPROVE essential aspects of the AGW theory. The links are in the 6th last paragraph of the article.

Anyone of those papers disprove AGW. On the other hand there are no conclusive papers which prove AGW; all the AGW evidence consists of computer modelling which has been revealed to be based on flawed assumptions and parameters for crucial elements of AGW.

You say: "I'm convinced by the AGW argument." What in particular convinces you?
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 4:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every high rise, village or urban suburb, could create all the alternative endlessly sustainable fuel they need and free hot water, simply by simply converting their current wasted waste, [and I apologise for the obvious pun,] into on demand electrical energy.
This closed cycle smell free method, utilises a couple of tanks roughly around the size of shipping containers, which convert the waste via two separate biological processes, into methane.
The methane is then stored in simple bladders and released with demand, into super silent solid state ceramic fuel cells, to provide entirely independent endlessly sustainable, onsite energy.
Given the efficiency factor of 60%, which when compared to coal-fired power, 20%, means the alternative is 2 3rds cheaper.
It's all very exportable Aussie innovation, which to date has received no reported official support or funding. Why? The power of the fossil fuel industry, coal-fired power, with its huge returns from a still largely captive market, and their powerful cashed up political lobbyists, perhaps?
Think, the widespread acceptance of and funding paradigms for the above, would likely resuscitate the steel industry and local manufacture, with all the wealth and job creation spin-offs, that would create.
Incidentally, the locally invented Sarich orbital engine, is still the cheapest to make, worlds most efficient lowest emission engine, with the least moving parts.
You'd think that this engine, which incorporates V8 power and performance bands, along with the miserly petrol sipping economy of a victa mower, would be the perfect partner for the new and much vaunted long range Holden volt.
Think, we could probably produce a CNG powered variant, which given its incredible efficiency, could save the large Australian car manufacturing industry and exports?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 4:46:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Roses,
Are you serious about " ....an oversight panel of judiciary [which] may prevent propaganda /opinion being presented as 'analysis of facts' " ?

I have the right, just as you do, to be casual with the truth, in pursuit of my ideology, insofar as everything I - or you, or anybody - writes or says or thinks does not have to be 100 % spot-on: think of the alternative - that if a neo-liberal regime gained control of such a committee and could dictate to you what was and what was not the 'truth' and prosecute you for any deviation, anything less than 100% of what THEY say is the Only Truth.

The essence of free speech is to allow the free expression of opinions that we don't agree with. We are, after all, not all dills, we can weigh up arguments more or less, although of course we tend to give more value to those with which we already agree with. On reflection, every Monday night, after watching Q & A, I'm prepared to modify that opinion about us not all being dills. But even so, if I were king, I would still allow the teenagers and Greens (overlapping sets if ever there were such things) to express their poorly-thought-out, but heartfelt and shallow opinions: I can always just switch off or watch Shameless instead.

No, freedom of speech does not extend to incitement or actual violence (or the threat of it). But nobody's opinion is so sacrosanct that nobody else can have a go at it.

As for New Limited and AGW, The Australian publishes the weather forecast each day and, as an extra, it publishes for each capital city the highest-ever maximum and lowest-ever minimum for that day, from which we can gain just a glimmer of evidence, one way or the other, of AGW. Why do they do that ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 4:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh yes, Anthony Cox links to JoNova - your confirmation bias is strong today cohenite.

Here's another point of view where Cox's cognitive dissonance will out-out:

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-carbon-tax-insurance-against-climate-change-8244
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 5:02:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting points Rhosty but ultimately unrealistic. Look at Sweden, in the news lately due to Steffen's misrepresentations about Sewden's energy production; see:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/clean-up-energy-for-the-sake-of-our-grandchildren/story-e6frgd0x-1226432219509

Contrary to Steffen's piffle Sweden get's 7.5% of its power from waste:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/07/23/sweden-for-example/

Why not more?

As for this statement:

"Given the efficiency factor of 60%, which when compared to coal-fired power, 20%, means the alternative is 2 3rds cheaper."

What you are talking about is capacity factor [CF] which is the % of power produced as a % of the maximum power if the installation was working 24/7.

Large scale coal fired power averages a CF of 87.5%, and Nuclear is the best averaging around 92.5% Worldwide, but in the US currently around 96%.

No other power source comes close to this and the renewables are so far behind as to be out of sight.

What needs to be done is to improve the efficiency of coal and invest in late generation nuclear and Thorium. Everything else is either unrealistic or small scale.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 5:23:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So there is a growing number who can see the lies of AGW.The CO2 Tax is going towards financing the UN and their Gobal Governance in which we will all be serfs subject to their laws and whims.Under Agenda 21,it has already begun.

The banks want the ETS and Malcolm Turnbull is a Goldman Sachs boy.This AGW is the biggest scam in all scientific history.Their lastest scare is about water" Last drink at the Oasis" done by the same people who did," Inconvenient truth" yet at the same time ignore coal seam gas destruction of farmland and underground water.

It has been a litany of lies and deception to bring in their "New World Order" in which a few elites will own everything and everyone.

It is already happening in Greece and Italy whereby bankers now run and control their countries.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 5:50:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot, this is my comment on the nonsense article to which you provided a link;
"Insurance covers the insuree for risk.

There is no risk to cover, as it cannot be shown that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

There is no risk to be covered, and no money is retained to make any payout that might be necessary.

The reduction in emissions is said to ultimatel reduce temperature by .0038 degrees. This means that it has virtually no effect. Considering that rising CO2 for the past 15 years has had no effect, a cut in emissions will have no effect

Payments will be made from the tax as bribes to attempt to gain votes for the Labor Party. Judging by the polls, they are bribing only people who already vote for them.

Funds will also be paid to the unelected, unaccountable United Nations, which will distribute it to undeveloped countries, on the basis that they refrain from generating power to give them a civilized life.

This article is baseless, and attempts to excuse an inexcusable burden on the Australian community."
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 6:16:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian national Coalition's position on all this could be to undo the carbon tax and Legislate an Emissions Trading Scheme. ETS is not mentioned in the article of this thread.

In any case, Coalition leader Abbott has not replied to repeated request to discuss the situation that leads to a question that surely should be repeated until honestly and clearly answered, publicly.

Has AGW and Kyoto science measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in natural and sewage nutrient proliferated ocean algae?

I think algae can increase warmth in an ocean similar to how a small heater can increase warmth in a building. I also think there is more plant matter in the ocean than on land.

Over 50% of world oxygen comes from the ocean.

Surface temperature of ocean water dominates influence on weather.

Algae is abundant en masse in ocean where ice in reported melting more than usual. See:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

AGW science can not be settled at least until all likely sources of anthropogenic warmth are measured and assessed.

I think a majority of scientists agree AGW is a problem but disagree CO2 is the cause. Being skeptical about CO2 is one thing, being skeptical about AGW is another thing.

I wonder if Coalition leader Abbot is prepared to shows his hand now and admit whether a government led by him, will or will not legislate an ETS?

Or can Mr Abbott or anyone show evidence ocean algae is not linked to AGW?
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 9:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Flat earthers of the world, give up.
It is not a debate any more only a plaintive "but I don't want the way I live, to change".
Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:50:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot makes his usual entrance with 2 insults in 3 lines and a link which proves what?

The CO2 tax will decimate the economy; bonmot’s link purports to say it will not and that its economic impact will be a piddling 2.8% reduction in GDP by 2050, equal to 2 years economic growth, or about $2 TRILLION in today’s dollars. This figure of $2 TRILLION confirms a Frontier Economic modelling study from 2009:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ets-to-shrink-regional-growth/story-e6frg6nf-1225691476399

That doesn’t sound piddling to me but what do I know, I have cognitive dissonance. So I checked a more recent analysis using treasury data; this shows a $1TRILLION shrinkage in GDP by 2020:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/15/government-senator-telling-porkies-and-scoring-own-goals/

Yeah, the CO2 tax will not have any impact on the economy at all; and that’s the Treasury not Jo which is saying that. We could be lucky though, given Treasury’s track record they’ll probably be wrong about this as well. Treasury could be wrong worse or better. Bonmot will probably say wrong better. But then what does he know.

Sarnian; great post; obviously you are talking about the alarmists who believe in AGW and are flat-Earthers in the true sense of the word since they want to take us back to a time when people believed the Earth was flat; just one slight correction to this:

“but I don't want the way I live, to change”

Should be:

but I don't want the way I live, to change, except to get worse.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 10:27:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everyone needs to google and read 'Kangaroo Court of Australia' and you will see why our redhead is so keen to spend lots money against taxpayers future income to stopping our freedom of speech in Australia. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'!!
Posted by adorable, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 10:45:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF, AGW is an acronym for anthropological global warming, i.e. global warming caused from human emissions.

No scientist has put up a basis for human emissions having any significance in global warming. The IPCC say it is “very likely”. The fact is that there is no measurable effect of human emissions on global climate.

The majority of scientists agree that we have experienced global warming. A small number, the Climategate miscreants, attempt to confuse it with AGW, which has no proveable scientific basis.

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions. The natural variation in the volume of the cycle is 10%. It is not surprising that the effect of human emissions is trivial, and of no significance.

Human emissions have only been shown to have a local effect, not global.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 12:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JFAus:

Ocean algae, otherwise known as phyloplankton or cynaobacteria:

http://phys.org/news199471106.html

Conversely:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-ocean-wins-again/#more-38673

Who knows whether levels are rising or falling:

http://landshape.org/enm/oceanic-cayanobacteria-in-the-modern-global-cycle/
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 12:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a joke Anthony Cox is. Calls others he disagrees with idiots and trolls but cries to mummy when he is shown up for what he is.

Trolls the Nova and Watt's blogs, holds fundy-right wing tanks as the be all and end all of scientific endeavour while at the same time does not know how to denounce the drivel emanating from his chorus of back-slappers who revere catalaxy, Lavoisier Group, Heartland and the 'Lord' Monkton's SPPI.

Yep, what we have come to expect here on OLO.

Me, I rather partake in real scientific forums.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 3:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Bonmot, thank god for democracy, people such as yourself AND Anthony can express their opinions, giving offense right and left. Beautiful.

One of the roles of the media is to provide information. one of the roles of citizens is to interpret, to make sense or a hash, of what information is at their disposal.

Your conclusions, Anthony's conclusions, my conclusions, arising from that information, and our perfectly accurate (in your case) or distorted (in my case), as well as Anthony's, interpretations are all allowable within the context of freedom of expression.

After all, freedom of speech and expression means as much right for idiots such as myself to express themselves as a sensible, intelligent, perfectly correct person such as yourself can.

And we should be celebrating that, instead of trying - as others have done on this thread - to demonise people by labelling them 'denialists' or 'alarmists'. Forget the messenger - what is the message ?

And we have to ask ourselves, in what direction would the application of the recommendations of the Finkelstein Review move discussion ? Or channel it ? Or stifle it ?

I'm puzzled: most of us are not half-wits. We're not puppets. So why do some people fear the power of TV stations, or of News Limited in particular ? Surely most of us can read between the lines, we know when a particular element of the media is pushing a certain line on an issue - in fact, we expect it. After all, newspapers and TV stations tend to represent certain class and/or political interests: some of us take it for granted, and have done all our lives. We can negotiate the minefields. We don't need some Council to 'protect our interests' and do it for us.

Thanks, Bonmot.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 5:31:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know what the message is Joe.

Some people deliberately distort or misrepresent it.

Others do so unintentionally.

In any event, in msm and on sites like this, it's not about the science - it's about political ideology, socio-cultural fervor or religious belief. Not all mutually exclusive I will add.

That is why the vast majority of scientists working at the coal-face stay away from places like Anthony Cox's blog, or those he links.

You're right - it's a free society, we can read and express our opinions anyway we want. However, with that freedom comes a responsibility to not make stuff up.

But, I am an idiot in arms, what would I know :)
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 6:11:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

Sarcastic as ever.

Good old "democracy" and "freedom of speech" in the age of information. They are wonderful entities to fall back on when we want to puff ourselves up.

"....After all, newspapers and TV stations tend to represent certain class and/or political interests..."

Yer darn tootin' they do - and disseminating junk science to maintain the status quo is something we might expect in the information age where discernment, knowledge and truth often take a back seat to entertainment, spectacle and gossip.

I can sympathise with bonmot. It must be frustrating to watch intelligent people with limited scientific training pontificate as if they knew their stuff while buying into conspiracy theories selectively promoted by various outlets representing the "free press".
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 8:50:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So true, and well described, Joe... "most of us are not half-wits. We're not puppets... most of us can read between the lines... We can negotiate the minefields."

And we can recognise when some are acting like Cox.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,
Human emissions, your words.
Nutrients in sewage are emitted from humans, that source and others proliferate ocean micro algae.
In my opinion based on long term observation the effect of the total sewage nutrient loading being produced and emitted by humans is significant, not trivial. That total human sewage nutrient load, grey water nutrients included, is not yet being observed and assessed by science, nor is the associated photosynthesis-linked warmth.
Local not global? El Nino and phenomena linked to South American waters and weather in Australia is linked to nutrients and algae.

cohenite,
I think science about algae, seaweed, phytoplankton, cyanobacteria is confusing.
How can micro ocean algae be cyanobacteria while Lyngbya macro algae is also cyanobacteria?

Should science generalize under circumstances of present fish stock and coral devastation worldwide?

Should ocean micro algae single cell plant matter, and calcium carbonate coccolithophore organisms, both be called phytoplankton?
In my opinion, generalization is dangerous especially at this stage as observation indicates micro algae chlorophyll matter has increased in the past say 50 years, while calcium carbonate and/or zooplankton organisms may have decreased during the same period.
The 50 years involves first hand observation of visibility and light penetration associated with film exposure underwater.
Waters generally are now either more green, greener more often, green noticeable sometimes when not previously, etc.
Look for green in ocean surf water. Look for the now muddy green in river water.

Increased ocean micro algae is linked to increased size and number of ocean dead zones worldwide. How can ‘phytoplankton’ algae now be in decline?

The sewage nutrient loading being dumped daily in world ocean food web ecosystem waters is unprecedented. Is there no reaction from the action?

The question of photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter as asked, remains unanswered.

By the way, thanks to the OLO site owner for opportunity to discuss these matters.
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF, we are talking about anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Your assertions are irrelevant to this, and seem to be based purely on your personal opinion.

Much of what you put forward has been shown to have no basis, particularly the assertions about coral, but I will ask whether you have any scientific study to justify your rant. You sound like a greeny.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 26 July 2012 3:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Poirot, the point about democracy and the freedom of speech is that even idiots like me are entitled to express their opinions in a democracy, just as much as a highly intelligent person such as yourself or Bonmot.

What would be your alternative ? That all opinions are disinfected beforehand by a Committee chosen by Big Brother ? That Wrong Opinion-Holders (WOHs) must regrettably be 'sanctioned', 'subtracted' ? Liquidated ?

The older and grumpier I get, the more inclined I am - as a born Socialist, and an ex-Maoist - to take notice of Hayek's proposal that Socialism and Fascism are directly related, and flow into each other, and the attitude of so many who may think of themselves as socialist in some way does verge towards the fascist. Think of the Soviet Union, China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mengistu's Ethiopia and so many other brave 'experiments' in socialism - didn't they all use many of the same tactics as fascists, and similar excuses for the elimination of out-people (different out-people, to be sure), the non-people who did not fit in with the Grand Social-Historical Plan ?

And wasn't the curtailment of the freedom of speech a cornerstone of their mutual policies ?

Very depressing to see 'progressives' opposed to the freeest of expression, Poirot. But historically, not new :(

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 26 July 2012 4:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Joe, I note your first paragraph is wall-to-wall sarcasm - which by now is very tiresome and not very clever....

Cheers yourself, mate.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 26 July 2012 4:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,

Are you suggesting warmth in the ocean is not warming the globe? Are you suggesting no solar warmth is absorbed in ocean algae during photosynthesis? On what grounds is solar warmth linked to ocean plant photosynthesis, irrelevant in AGW science?

Do you have scientific evidence my opinion is incorrect?

What exactly have I put forward that according to you, has been shown to have no basis?

What assertions about coral are you referring to?

Describe the rant you claim. Your non specific reply may be the actual rant.

Are you one of those science teachers that become irritated when unable or unwilling to answer a question put forward by a student?

I am not a greeny. Are you irritated by greenies or students?

You sound like a scientist unable or unwilling to answer the question of whether or not AGW science has measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in natural and sewage nutrient proliferated ocean algae.

Scientific and photographic evidence shows abundant nutrient-proliferated algae in waters where sea ice is reported melting more than usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coccolithophore_bloom.jp
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 26 July 2012 6:14:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,

This works.
Google: Coccolithophore bloom Wikipedia 1998
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 26 July 2012 6:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

You'reright, I'll try to re-phrase that:

An idiot has as much right to express himself as a highly intelligent person. The right to free speech means the right of other people to say things that I disagree with, even passionately.

But even a dill such as myself (and I'm not being sarcastic here) can negotiate his way around the obvious propaganda in The Australian, just as he or she can around what is written in the Green Left Weekly, or The Age.

The point is we don't need some over-arching Committee of Morals and Proper Speech, to guide us to The Good Society. That way lies fascism.

Yes ? No ?

Cheers, Sweetie

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 26 July 2012 7:10:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Me, I rather partake in real scientific forums."

Frenchie, you sound like Clive did when he slammed the door:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

I haven't heard any science form you yet; where are these paragons of scientific virtue and discourse which you frequent? I'd really like to read some science as presented by my superiors and betters!

I must say though it is very mean of you to withhold your scientific wit and wisdom from us undernourished plebs here at OLO.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 26 July 2012 7:39:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Research, conferences and seminars ... rounded up in the literature of course.

Certainly not on blog sites where wannabes like yourself trot out guff.

Thanks for the link to Clive Hamilton's OLO piece.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 27 July 2012 10:53:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Research, conferences and seminars ... rounded up in the literature of course"

Examples? You really are a snob frenchie; not for the masses are the sublime insights of the exalted class of climate scientists, eh?

Are you sure you aren't Clive?
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 27 July 2012 12:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You claim to be a "climate scientist" Anthony Cox.

You certainly haven't turned up to any conferences I attend.
You have not published in any recognised journal - but we've been through that before.

Stick with Gina and the 'Lord', it's easier for you.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 27 July 2012 12:43:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon frenchie; just one piece of evidence to support AGW; don't resort to wheeling out the old non-publication BS and the other secret handshake criteria for establishing worth and right to comment on AGW; by doing so you merely confirm what I said.

Go on, just one; for heaven's sake all I'm asking for is one bit of evidence to support your slavish support of AGW; do it tout de suite!
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 27 July 2012 1:12:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Journal of Climatology (for example) - plenty in the literature to pick from Anthony.

The weight of evidence ... significant component of current global warming due to human activity.

Now, back to your homework - check out enhanced greenhouse effect and the planet's energy/radiation balance.

Btw, I am not Clive.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 27 July 2012 1:38:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect [EGE] relies on water feedback to amplify the initial but asymptotically declining heating effect of CO2 [which effectively ceases at about 200 ppm, see Hottel and Beers Law].

The argument for the EGE is in TAR at Chapter 6, 1.3.1 and AR4, FAQ 3.1. This argument basically says that initial warming by CO2 increase causes more evaporation and the extra water causes further heating which causes further oceanic release of CO2 and the cycle continues in a runaway fashion.

There are a number of rebuttals of this. The first is an inhouse one by the AGW establishment when Frank et al published his 2010 paper which showed the CO2 sensitivity to warming was much less than previously thought:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

With CO2 sensitivity less that would mean that less warming occurred with each successive release of CO2 from the water feedback.

A more conclusive rebuttal is Miskolczi's finding of a constant optical depth [OD] over the last 60 years; the OD is a measure of the Greenhouse effect and given the assumption of the EGE should have increased with the increase in CO2 over the same period. It hasn't. The reason is that water vapor has fallen while CO2 has increased thus balancing the heating of the CO2 increase:

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour

More generally the CO2 cycle is a product of the water cycle which in turn is solar dependent as Viezer showed in 2007:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml

And I haven't even mentioned clouds which are indisputably both a -ve feedback and forcing to temperature; a fact which has both confused the AGW science and led to considerable obfuscation by AGW science.

Comment?
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 27 July 2012 3:05:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, I see your rebuttal and raise you one thousand.

Says it all really.

Now, off to Mr Watts and the 'Lord' with your homework:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 27 July 2012 3:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no weight of evidence for AGW, as asserted by bonmot. The warming from human emissions has never been measured. It cannot be, because it is trivial. He must have been reading some nonsense site like Skeptical Science.

Bonmot never gives any specific scientific references. They might limit him to reality.

The assertion that CO2 emitted by human activity could be identified has been shown to be nonsense.

Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics.

He gave an address recently; Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources showing that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels appear to be primarily related to natural temperature changes, not human CO2 emissions

He also commented:

“… I’ve been analyzing the C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa. Just as others have found, the decrease in that ratio with time (over the 1990-2005 period anyway) is almost exactly what is expected from the depleted C13 source of fossil fuels. But guess what? If you detrend the data, then the annual cycle and interannual variability shows the “… I’ve been analyzing the C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa. Just as others have EXACT SAME SIGNATURE. So, how can decreasing C13/C12 ratio be the signal of HUMAN emissions, when the NATURAL emissions have the same signal?”

http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-part-of-natural-co2-emissions-dynamite-conference-by-prof-murray-salby/
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 27 July 2012 3:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cousin Leo,

Of course there has been global warming and sea-level rise - about one degree, and two inches, in the last sixty years. Yes, some of it might be because of cyclical factors, some of the temperature rise at measuring stations may be attributed to the heat island effects of larger cities and of the building of structures and placing of populations nearer to measuring stations, that sort of thing.

But an inch or two, and a degree or two, is not to be sneezed at: not only that but some of those changes may well be attributable to human activity.

To get back to more important issues, such as the Finkelstein Report and its assault on one of the basic human rights, the freedom of expression, and in particular, its recommendations that news should be censored (let's call it what it is for a change). The question is always: who does the censoring ? And imagine if the 'other' side got into power and replaced all or 'our' censors' with 'their' censors: what then ?

Freedom of expression isn't just some frippery, some icing on a perfectly adequate cake - it is a vital part of any democratic life, and I would have thought that any genuine, progressive, human-oriented Left, of all people, would have been aware of that, if only through the bitter lessons of history. Maybe every generation has to learn those lessons the hard way, over and over.

Or not, as in the case of our Froggy friends :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 27 July 2012 5:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where do you draw the line, Joe?

If the Murdoch press can behave like cowboys in Britain, why not here? And why shouldn't Gillard react to the events over there? The Murdoch Press is a big player in Australia.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

: )

(sweetie)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 27 July 2012 6:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(sweetie) ? Mmmmmmm .......

And is Murdoch getting away with it ? Doesn't look like it. Is that sort of thing happening here ? Maybe, but it doesn't look like it all that much, no more in News Limited entities than elsewhere, just business as usual.

And if it were, are you saying that we need some Secret Court to police the media, rather than relying on current laws and exposing if and when they prove to be inadequate ?

As a number of posters have pointed out, suppose there were such an overarching Secret Committee: if government changed hands, what would there be to stop a new government, for argument's sake an Abbott government, from sacking all of the members of the Secret Court and appointing its own executioners (in Russia, of course, the old-school apparatchiki would all be shot over this weekend and replaced by Monday) ?

Freedom of speech is untidy, ragged, sometimes unpleasant and angry and hurtful, but a difference of views is surely vital for a vibrant democracy ?

Or should we be striving for Order ? Obedience to a Greater Good ?

Big hugs,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 27 July 2012 6:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't you 2 get a room.

Bonmot links to Vecchi. I’m a bit of a fan of Vecchi; he has been beavering away now for some time on a number of themes; one of those themes is that the large climate systems, the Hadley and Walker, are being affected by AGW and are weakening; they aren’t:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

Vecchi also subscribes to the theory that relative humidity is constant which would mean that if temperature is increasing then the specific humidity [SH] must be increasing; this is basic physics; BUT as I have shown SH is declining; this is a basic fact; this is also consistent with the fact that the temperature in the atmosphere is barely increasing [and hence NO tropical hot spot] when apparently the surface temperature is increasing:

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation2.jpg

How to explain that which is totally contradictory to AGW? UHI, which is either ignored or misunderstood by AGW, does the job.

Vecchi is a modeller; he personifies the problem with AGW science; all the AGW evidence is produced by modelling and invariably contradicted by evidence. Koutsoyiannis has shown this by hindcasting the AGW modelling against past climate indices; the modelling could not even predict the past and yet we are expected to believe that it can predict the future.

Try harder bonmot.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 27 July 2012 9:16:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why don't you 2 get a room"

I hope you're not referring to moi?

Loudmouth likes to turn on the smarm and patronise the ladies occasionally - I was just returning the favour.

He's not even French!
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 27 July 2012 11:59:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or Belgian either :(

But "patronising" !? Moi ?! No, I just adore creations of beauty, as most women are, the one big reason why I would ever believe in a god, and a most kind and benevolent god at that. And I suspect, Poirot, that you meet all of Her criteria.

:)

Now back to Finkelstein and the silencing of dissent ......
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 28 July 2012 10:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leo, you say:

“Bonmot never gives any specific scientific references. They might limit him to reality.”

Only see what you want to see, eh Leo? Try this, immediately before your stupid remark/lie:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Or this, one of Seager, Naik and Vogel’s latest: “Does Global Warming Cause Intensified Interannual Hydroclimate Variability?” Do try and find it.

Hey, why not even look at this paper? It’s based on evidence, measurement and observation:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

Leo, the above are “specific scientific references”, unlike your links to ‘denialist’ blog sites wherein distortion and misrepresentation is rife. Which reminds me, how’s the Lavoisier Group travelling? Wait, don’t bother – been there too.

.

And to dearest Anthony Cox:

Try harder at what? As I said above, we’ve been through this before.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13063#226386

I agree with the previous commenter, just because you think ‘publishing’ your unreviewed or rejected guff on OLO or in cyberspace cuts it doesn’t make your attempt at the science right, despite you using OLO as a platform to shout to all and sundry “look at me, look at me, look at me”.

Tell you what Anthony, if you really want to be a climatologist (not just a wannabe) just put up your latest creation to one of the respected journals, citing Seiger et al of course. Here, let me help:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291097-0088/homepage/ForAuthors.html

(Advice to others – don’t hold your breath)

Anthony – since you failed your last test (wrong about Seager et al) extra homework for you – try Zahn and Allan and repeat 100 times: 1 + 1 = 2 (not 3)

Repeat another 100 times: the overwhelming empirical evidence does not contradict AGW; it gives extra weight to it.

Oh yeah, please explain why it’s ok for AGW sceptics like Spencer & Braswell, or Lindzen & Choi, to use models, but not Seager et al. LOL, even you ‘rely’ on models – confirmation bias and motivational reasoning, ignoring the fact that you’re wrong.

Blog on, Anthony : )

Adieu
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 28 July 2012 10:58:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too much chemistry, not enough marine biology. Not very good science at all.

What role does ocean plant matter play in AGW?

Is there any justification to exclude ocean plant matter from planet warming or AGW science?
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 28 July 2012 10:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot, I agree all climate researchers use models to deal with the data; how that data is converted to model algorithms differs profoundly between pro-AGW modellers and the likes of Spencer; the algorithms used by the AGW modellers actually predetermine the model function because they are based on the assumption that CO2 does cause the warming predicted by AGW.

The result of that perversion of the model analyses by AGW modellers leads to the remarkable conclusions of people like Vecchi [the primary author of your Seager et al link] that macro-climate forces like the Walker and ENSO are ‘affected’ by AGW. Vecchi has been doing this for ages, as have people like Santer:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w661873236444q18/fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP

Meehl [and Santer]:

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Meehlmid70s.JClim.pdf

This is nuts. In a Power and Smith paper alleging anthropogenic influence in macro-climate elements they also claim that the Walker is weakening: their paper is critiqued here:

http://landshape.org/enm/walker-circulation-and-enso/

Basically this paper and the other papers by Vecchi, Santer, Meehl, and your Zahn and Allan effort [which incidentally is quite circumspect and does not support your unmitigated enthusiasm for AGW; they say humidity is not increasing and that the macro climate processes are not changing even thought they speculate about wind energy] say that AGW suppresses the natural warming while simultaneously causing warming.

Do you want to think about that for a while? AGW warms while suppressing natural warming!

I don’t need to publish to see that is wrong bonmot.

The whole publishing right to comment on AGW gauntlet is a furphy; with most professions, medicine, law, accounting, engineering etc, you need qualifications to be considered to have expertise.

There is no such requirement for climate scientists; at one level therefore AGW can be seen as an attempt by a bunch of academics to create a profession of climate scientist.

But as we have seen via the emails and the scandals with peer review that attempt at a profession creation have been irrevocably tarnished
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 28 July 2012 12:45:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...with most professions...you need qualifications to be considered to have expertise.
There is no such requirement for climate scienctists..."

That's a bit of a lark, cohenite.

You, a lawyer, lamenting to bonmot, who works in the field, on the necessity for expertise when dealing with climate. I'd be interested to see your "qualifications" stacked up against his.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 28 July 2012 7:16:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'd be interested to see your "qualifications" stacked up against his."

Or Flannery's.

But really Poirot, all I can do is respond to his science, which I have done, and he keeps saying I am wrong because I have no qualifications.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 28 July 2012 11:29:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony: If you want to “talk the talk” you must “walk the walk” – particularly on complex and technical nuances that pervade the scientific literature. These are discussed/debated in great detail at the associated conferences, seminars and forums – particularly for those that work in the respective ‘climate sciences’.

You don’t do this, despite being encouraged to submit/present a paper to any one of the respected scientific publishing houses. By exposing your critique of any of my citations, you will truly expose your ‘credentials’ as someone who can really “talk the talk” and “walk the walk” – or be shown up to the experts/peers as what they really are – smoke screens and mirrors.

Of course the professions need “qualifications to be considered to have expertise”. That is no different to any of the so called ‘climate scientists’ – a.k.a. real climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists, biogeochemists, etc., etc. You don’t have any such qualification, you are a charlatan.

Anthony, you deliberately go out of your way to confuse and abuse the science. I suspect you do this because you simply do not understand the underlying science. OLO is simply no place to detail the technicalities and nuances, particularly to a non-expert audience. No Anthony, ‘blogging’ on popular (or not so popular) blog sites where a non-expert audience doesn’t really cut it, sorry.

Be assured though, the overwhelming view of the vast majority of scientists that "talk the talk" AND “walk the walk” is that AGW is real, it is a significant component of the current period of global warming, and that we must adopt global policies to limit and mitigate the impact.

This will be my last comment to you here, Anthony.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 29 July 2012 10:39:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes AGW is real but caused by CO2 emissions is not real.
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 29 July 2012 1:35:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus, you have proved my point - au revoir.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 29 July 2012 3:38:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I suspect you do this because you simply do not understand the underlying science."

I understand it better than you buddy. You've put up your best, I've looked at them and spat them back out. What you don't get is that is what I do for a living where if I get it wrong I don't get paid. I assess complex legal disputes some of which simply leave the so-called 'difficulty' of climate science for dead.

As a distraction you a disappointment; and being distractions is all climate scientists are good for.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 29 July 2012 5:41:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it possible to get a straight answer (okay, an exponentially curved answer) on AGW ?

* Sea-levels have risen by two inches in sixty years, and the rate of increase is what ? And the rate of increase is increasing at what rate ? How long have we got ? I can understand that anybody building within two to four inches above mean sea-level is in danger of having their proerty flooded in the next sixty years, but what else is implied by this dreadful possibility ?

* Temperatures, at least in Australia, have risen by two degrees in sixty years, in southern Tasmania as much as in northern Australia [except that, it has to be said, in the daily weather reports, maximum maximums in the last twelve years for Darwin are extremely rare and are probably balanced by the number of minimum minimums), and are rising exponentially at what rate ? How long have we got before we all fry ? Instead of picking apricots in 46 degrees, can I expect to be picking them in 48 degrees ? 50 degrees ?

And it's all man-made. Gosh, we're so evil.

Sorry, I know that the mark of a believer is that he/she does not ask questions, but I'm still new to this game, a probationer, an acolyte. Dare i say it: a sceptic.

Teach me that I may learn :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 29 July 2012 6:05:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth; since our resident climate scientist, bonmot, has done a Clive and left in a huff, let me point you towards some information.

The Bureau of Meteorology temperature site is here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T

As you can see the increase in temperature since 1910 has been about 0.8C not the 2C you noted.

However that 0.8C increase is subject to a host of qualifications which would lead any reasonable person, ie not a climate scientist, to suspect that 0.8C is unreliable:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf

There is cogent evidence to suggest the original High Quality [HQ] temperature network had a warming bias of 40% so that instead of a temperature trend of 0.8C the actual temperature increase was 0.5C.

BoM has just brought out a new temperature network called ACORN. It appears to have a similar warming bias to the old HQ network:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/#comment-1070341
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 29 July 2012 6:58:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

I understand it better than you buddy. You've put up your best. I've looked at them and spat them back out....."

That is the most spectacularly arrogant self-assessment I think I've read on OLO - and you have no formal qualifications in any of the disciplines associated with climate science. In fact, you measure your expertise on climate science by the fact that you "....assess complex legal disputes..."

Stunning!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 29 July 2012 6:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Stunning!"

Thank you frenchie, I knew I'd get in your good books sooner or later.

Pity your little mate has done a runner, eh
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 29 July 2012 7:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The science produced by bonmot has no bearing on the premise of AGW.

Human emissions have not been shown to have any measurable effect on global climate.

The topic is whether human emissions can be shown to be a cause of global warming, and bonmot gives a reference to a paper “in Response to Global Warming”. Not a mention of human emissions.

He cannot be as dense as he pretends. This action in posting a completely irrelevant reference is pure humbug.

We all know that there is no current science to support any assertion of significance to the trivial effect of human emissions. We are only dealing with failure to admit the truth. The effect of human emissions is not measurable, because it is trivial.

Five years ago, the IPCC said it was “very likely”, a perverse way of admitting that there is no science to back the assertion. They promised that the science to back it was imminent, and none has been forthcoming.

How many years do we have to wait for an admission, that this unscientific guess is nonsense?

Cohenite, never assume that bonmot means it when he promises not to return. His promises are like his understanding of science. Of no effect.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 30 July 2012 11:12:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At last ! Thank you, Cohenite. So, 0.5-0.8 degrees in a century, and what - all of it attributable to AGW ? No solar cycles, etc. ? No heat island effects on measuring stations ?

Okay, 0.8 degrees maximum. Nice to know.

And, by the way, calving icebergs: in the past, did icebergs never calve off until the ice sheet reached much further south, half-way to the Equator ? Seriously, sooner or later, all icebergs calve off glaciers and ice-sheets, and the larger the iceberg, the longer it has had to grow ? Or what ? And since they are, after all, water, sitting on water, when they melt they have absolutely no effect on sea-levels - isn't that so ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 30 July 2012 11:30:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dearest Leo,

You say:

>> Cohenite, never assume that bonmot means it when he promises not to return. <<

Which part of this statement do you not comprehend?

"This will be my last comment to you here, Anthony."

.

Btw, I suspect you and your fellow traveller won't like the following:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/methods-paper-with-appendix-may-14.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/uhi-revised-june-26.pdf (see Judith Curry has co-authored)

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/results-paper-july-8.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/station-quality-may-20.pdf

Looks like people of your ideological persuasion will now say the once renowned 'A-Team' of the so called "sceptics" are traitors, turn-coats and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Listen up, closely - see Judith Curry's name there? She's a co-author.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 30 July 2012 5:57:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bonmot,

So a median rise of 0.92-1.00 degree in a hundred years ? Tasmanians will be annoyed.

And no significant heat island effect overall ? That graph comparing Tokyo and rural Japan over a century did not seem to indicate that, but okay, we'll run with it.

So how much of that one degree is man-made ? How much is due to natural forces ? Give or take ?

And what impact will human intervention - switching to renewables, etc. - have on that one degree per century ?

Hypothetically, if most energy was generated via the latest forms of nuclear energy production, Generation 4 or 5 or 6 stations, what impact might that have over a century ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 30 July 2012 6:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Listen up, closely - see Judith Curry's name there? She's a co-author."

Bonmot, your deceit and dissembling is, to quote your impressionable little mate Poirot, "astounding".

Curry has disowned the BEST temperature record number 1 and would not participate in BEST 2; she publically chastised Muller for his statistical methods and his publicising of the BEST papers before they were peer reviewed.

In fact BEST 1 has been peer reviewed and rejected, see comment 24 here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/blockbuster-anthony-watts-squewers-muller-best-and-the-surface-record-all-in-one-paper/#comment-1097151

In respect of BEST 2, also publicised by Muller before peer review, Curry is scathing. BEST 2, which extends BEST 1 back to 1750 and makes completely unfounded conclusions about AGW is repudiated by Watts' new subsurface paper which is also before peer review; for a comparison of Watts' paper and BEST 2 see Jo Nova here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/blockbuster-anthony-watts-squewers-muller-best-and-the-surface-record-all-in-one-paper/#comment-1097151

Watts has used the updated statistical method of Leroy which is the gold standard for adjusting raw temperature data; the BEST methodology is hopelessly flawed and does not use Leroy. When Leroy is applied to the raw data a temperature trend of less than 1/2 found by BEST and the IPCC is found. This repudiates AGW in its extent and arguably as a cause of the much less temperature increase over the 20thC.

Watts is a true scientist; he does not have his snout in public funding either directly, or through academic positions or employment in one of government funded scientific bureacracies such as NASA, CSIRO and BoM.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 30 July 2012 11:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Watt, Watt. Watt?

Goodness me, Anthony Watts "suspended" his blog for the "major" announcement:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-announcement-coming/

"....there will be a major announcement that I'm sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.
To give you an idea as to the magnitude of this event I'm suspending my vacation plans..."

And here it is!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 30 July 2012 11:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

"Watts is a true scientist..."

: )

It seems Watts' paper is more notable for its typos than its groundbreaking science.

Who's doing the "peer" review apart from his fans on his blog?

Which respected journal is going to publish it?

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 8:52:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, if I may explain in context:

Take out scientists employed by; universities, scientific organisations and research institutions, NGO’s, industry/business groups, etc.

What you have left are mainly charlatans (sorry, “true scientists”) – popular bloggers where all ‘wannabes’ and so called ‘sceptics’ gravitate.

Seriously though, while I wouldn’t go as far as to accept the Muller et al BEST conclusion without undergoing the peer review that will follow (after all, it only reinforces what real scientists have known for decades) – I am amused by the antics of the charlatans (sorry, “true scientists”).
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 10:33:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonjour, mon ami,

Yes, I've learned a lot about the "skeptic" movement in the last year - fascinating really, as a phenomenon.

Of course, I'm more interested in the impetus behind such a movement and its machinations, and why it's only "climate" science that they believe is a sham. They don't seem to harbour the same suspicions regarding scientists in other fields.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 11:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot and bonmot try to make sense of Muller's mess:

http://frenchbulldog.hrastro.com/photos/photo/french_bulldog3.jpg
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:00:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The science for bonmot to quote is non existent and the ranks of those who supported the IPCC “guess” at the science are becoming thinner each day:

“Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 "Climategate" e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda.”

Read the whole article here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7mvumju

Anthony Watts has just come up with disclosure of more shoddy data from NOAA. Half of their "warming" is non-existent.

The AGW scam is dead in the water.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy