What the climate scientists were predicting was a greater frequency of extreme weather events. This week Australia has seen a category 5 cyclone hit North Queensland, flooding rain in Victoria, and a record heat wave in Sydney.

I would suggest that the noise coming from the denialists is in proportion to the accuracy of the predictions.

Mac,
You are usually pretty much on the ball but I think you might have mis-fielded. this time.

You say: “ I don't really value the opinions of economists, lawyers or any non specialists on the subject.” then go on to reference Naomi Oreskes!

Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, who along with Erik Conway (a historian at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory) recently authored “Merchants of Doubt”.

So Merchants of Doubt is perhaps a good measure of her style and thinking. It is marketed as a piece of investigation and analysis but reads from beginning to end like a piece of one-eyed advocacy.

It starts-out bemoaning the “attacks” on “one of the worlds most distinguished scientists”:

“Ben Santer is the kind of guy you could never imagine anyone attacking . He’s thoroughly moderate --of moderate height and build or moderate political persuasion . He is also very modest …People have been questioning the data, doubting the evidence , and attacking the scientists who collect and explain it. No one has been more brutally –or more unfairly – attacked than Ben Santer."
(actually, what Ben Santer had to endure was very little different to what people like Pilmer have had to put up with!)

And having started with that little sympathy seeking story, the authors straight-away proceed to do a hatchet job on a number of prominent sceptics associating them big tobacco , big polluters and lack of scruples.

And they do so, while all the while referencing and lauding such sources as Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore & the IPCC , without even hinting at the aforementions fallibility.

Born Lomborg is also given a serve because he questioned certain aspects of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

I came away with the impression that there were no sceptics who were not on the payroll of big industry, which is simply not credible.

There may be good sources that support the AGW case -- but I have my doubts that a joint author of Merchants of Doubt is one of them.

SPQR,

Fair comment. I should have been more explicit, I wasn't trying to present Prof Oreskes as an expert on climate change itself, but as an expert on the politics and history of the subject. That's why I referenced the link the "politics behind climate change/global warmimg denial". You could argue that she has misrepresented the facts, however, I don't have the expertise to make a judgement as to whether she has or not.

As far as I understand, the consensus among climatologists is that the balance of evidence points to climate change, that's good enough for me. As to scientific dissenters from the mainstream--well, perhaps their ideas represent one of those 'paradigm shifts' in science that will lead to a new accepted theory, or they could be complete ratbags. I'll leave that judgement to their colleagues.

Some of the 'evidence' presented by supporters of both sides of the controversy does nothing more than demonstrate either their ignorance of Statistics 101, or their self-serving agendas.

Mark (at Friday, 4 February 2011 4:25:36 PM)

You have indeed written a good article. I agree with much of the science (and the scientists) you reference.

However, I think it is entirely unprofessional for a science reporter to then accuse (in the comments) CSIRO, BOM, etc of saying droughts in the Murray-Darling basin were entirely due to global warming. They simply did not say that, Mark.

What I found particularly disturbing is that you followed this up with your inferred vexatious comment:

"We are all going to starve to death because crops would wither in the heat etc, etc."

Who said that Mark, who can you attribute the remarks to? In my opinion, those remarks were disingenuous at best, intentionally malicious at worst. Can you get any of your contributing scientists in your article to endorse those remarks – I bet not.

Back to topic.
While the PDO is termed an oscillation, there is no ‘evidence’ to show that it is (hopefully the work by your contributors will help). It is easy to assume the SOI is “periodic” but as has been said before, you have to understand the concept of “periodicity” and that the time scales assigned to the PDO is a “characteristic” time scale – they are not periods. For example, the PDO time scale includes 50 to 90 year and 10 to 30 year scales.

PDO, ENSO, etc does impact our oceans. However, the cause of these oscillations is still unresolved, as you have pointed out e.g. what do you think is driving the heat content?

Predicting the PDO is very uncertain because of the limited time we have been making direct observations. We really don’t know if the PDO is a long term pattern of variation or just another unexplained unknown. It certainly is not “periodic” (by definition) so any predictions based on it are meaningless.

Every government will have to make strategic policy decisions in the next few years but that they should have to wait until they can validate an unknown unknown is just plain stupid.

Fester has it right

Accuracy of predictions

Ramps up denial

groan .. more climate astrology "What the climate scientists were predicting was a greater frequency of extreme weather events."

yet BOM site has it that extreme weather events, like cyclones are not increasing .. in the US there has not been a land falling hurricane for 4 years .. how is that explained?

"This week Australia has seen a category 5 cyclone hit North Queensland"

stop exaggerating, it was Cat 3 when it crossed the coast.

"flooding rain in Victoria, and a record heat wave in Sydney."

Heatwaves are not new, floods are not new .. these are not even record floods.

"I would suggest that the noise coming from the denialists is in proportion to the accuracy of the predictions."

I would suggest the noise from the believers is loud every time it rains, or doesn't rain, or if there is any weather at all.

You can't claim "accuracy" when the "prediction" is so vague .. extreme weather events, like La Nina? Do you understand anything about climate science?

No one has made "predictions", as in this summer XXX will happen .. it is all vague nonsense, that weather events MAY be more extreme, they also "predicted" continuing drought .. how do you resolve that ... that drought and extreme events (floods and cyclones) are both "predicted"

What utter unbelievable nonsense.

shintroa - "accuracy of predictions" So which prediction was accurate, that Brisbane would flood if the dams were mismanaged? That in cyclone season, there would be cyclones? In a La Nina year of all things?

I guess it feels good to finger wag from the sidelines, cheering for doom.

regardless, it won't change the way weather happens, nor will taxing people or any number of stupid actions you all insist on.