So climate change science has all the compelling logic of cricket! Well, THERE'S your problem!

Honestly, is this the best the alarmists can do now?

You don,t have to believe in climate change to believe we have to get off oil. Pollution is killing this planet slowly. There needs to be change in the way we live. We are living in the fast lane, and that needs to be curtailed.

If you find that the selectors are betting against the team or that the selectors never include spin bowlers in the team then you might have cause for concern.

If the selectors lost the key records of previous matches you might have cause for concern.

If the new coach starts touting for a massive payrise because form appears to be up at the moment but it's also obvious that the same players have had better form at times in the past you might doubt that it's not all about the coach.

I don't like cricket so maybe that put me off to start with.
Attributing the recent Brisbane floods to climate change does not help when you look at flood history for the river
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_River
* 14 January 1841 (Highest flood level to date)
* March 1890
* February 1893, a sequence of flood peaks over some three weeks saw the highest recorded flood level in the Brisbane central business district.
* February 1931
* 27 January 1974 (Largest flood to affect Brisbane City in the 20th Century).
* 11 January 2011

You might also look at the cyclone record for Queensland
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/cyclones-eastern.shtml
There have been 207 known impacts from tropical cyclones along the east coast since 1858. Major east coast tropical cyclones impacts include 1890 Cardwell; 1893 Brisbane; 1898 NSW; 1899 Bathurst Bay; 1918 Innisfail; 1918 Mackay; 1927 Cairns and inland areas; 1934 Port Douglas; 1949 Rockhampton; 1954 Gold Coast; 1967 Dinah, Southern Queensland; 1970 Ada, Whitsunday Islands; 1971 Althea, Townsville; 1974 Wanda, Brisbane; and 2006 Larry, Innisfail.

The Queensland region of the Gulf of Carpentaria region has been hit by several disastrous tropical cyclones. These include The 1887 Burketown cyclone, The 1923 Douglas Mawson cyclone, The 1936 Mornington Island cyclone; the 1948 Bentick Island cyclone and Ted in 1976.

If you want to attribute specific events to global warming based on form what do you do with the 1890's and 1930's?

Global warming may well be a very serious risk, understanding that risk is not helped by weak claims.

R0bert

I agree, R0bert.

>>Global warming may well be a very serious risk, understanding that risk is not helped by weak claims.<<

My biggest issue with "climate change" is the amount of hot air it generates, as the protagonists vie with each other for command over the "facts".

Articles like this don't help.

In fact, the "form/performance" analogy fails completely.

Batting history - "form" - counts for nothing when the player is at the dawn of their career. Michael Clarke scored 151 in his first Test against India in Bangalore, despite having a first-class average at that time of less than 40.

And towards the end of a career, selectors may decide to overlook a player whose form is apparently good, on the balance of probabilities that their performance may fail at a critical juncture.

Taken at another level, however, cricket itself can be an excellent mentor for the folly of any performance prediction, at any time, ever.

The 2011 World cup has already given us England vs India (Tie), England vs Ireland (Ireland win) and England vs South Africa (England win).

If you had had a ten dollar accumulator on those three, you'd be set for life.

But in order to do that, you'd have had to have thrown the form book out of the window.

Pericles "My biggest issue with "climate change" is the amount of hot air it generates, as the protagonists vie with each other for command over the "facts". "

Thanks you for putting that so well. Both sides of the debate put me off with the twists, dishonesty and spin applied to try and get their case to the fore. So much BS that it's hard to really take either side seriously.

As has been pointed out elsewhere there are things we should be doing anyway to reduce dependance on non-renewable energy sources and to reduce the risks associated with natural climate cycles which tie in with some of the AGW concerns.

Perhaps more focus on those aspects would be a far better tactic than trying to pin specific weather events (or even current weather patterns) to climate change esp AGW climate change.

R0bert

If the author was trained as a philosopher, then he should have recognized that his article proceeded from a false premise.

1.1 'because all we should and do care about is the weather'

Perhaps I missed it, but I'm not aware that many of the more rational skeptics (there are the loons, of course; there always are, and I just wish some folk weren't on my 'side', as it were) arguing such at all.

1.2 'it is not possible to attribute any particular weather event, no matter how unusual, to climate change'

No-one (again, that I'm aware of) is arguing that studying climate change is 'useless' *because* of this. It is simply pointed out as a basic fact, one that even the more rational alarmists concede.

2. 'expert peer review ... is corrupt or unreliable'

Again, no-one is saying that this is *inherently* true, just that it is *possible*, especially in a field that draws on a relatively small pool of 'experts'. This is not a claim without foundation, either: incidents such as the climategate emails and the recent Steig furore provide compelling evidence that a small clique of activist scientists are indeed trying to influence the process of peer review.

I do wish this bloke would find another hobby, golf, bolls, tiddlywinks, anything.

Preferably it should be something he knows something about, so he could be good at it.

The peer review system is passable providing the scientists are ethical.

This was a reasonable expectation, prior to the activities of the Climategate group, whose purpose was to back the IPCC in its AGW fraud.

There is an email from Trenberth, to Foster, which sums up their approach to science, available thanks to the whistleblower on their activities, who posted hundreds of emails on the web.

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed
it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is
President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras,
and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My
reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009

His haste is to discredit a study which shows that global warming is accounted for by natural cycles, so that the assertion that human emissions have an effect is left very little room to manoeuvre.

It is unethical to make an approach such as Trenberth made, and to gain an assurance that a study will be published in a prestigious journal.

One of the reviewers of the study, when Foster submitted it, pointed out that that it was not worded as a scientific study, but more a rhetorical declamation of a view. It was nevertheless published, and the study put forward to back up the original work, and to dismiss Foster’s effort, was stalled by the Journal.

This typifies the tactics of the alarmists. Their push is to control the contents of prestigious journals, and dishonesty infests their science.

Their actions are not cricket.

Someone posted a comment hat there is dishonesty on both sides of the debate, but I have yet to see dishonesty by the Realists. It is rife in the Alarmists.

Prof Rowan's effort to help with his cricket analogy has just further obscured the issue. Other posters have already made useful points about his sporting analogy so I will just talk about peer review, mentioned at the end of the article.

One of the very odd facets of this debate has been the insistence by scientists of peer review in forecasting. Peer review has a role in assessing papers for publication in scientific journals - a way of keeping down the scientific noise. As a system it has faults but basically its the only system anyone can think of for vetting papers.

But it has no role in forecasting and never did. The idea is to make a forecast and see whether it comes anywhere close to reality (see, we got something right for once), instead of saying that the forecast makes sense scientifically (as shown by the peer review) therefore it must be right.

I could say a great deal more but perhaps Prof Rowan by now will have come to appreciate the vast gulf between rhetoric and reality in this debate. A knowledge of cricket does not help.

an excellent article, but is anyone seriously debating this? only deniers have a problem with climate causing weather; the people you're arguing with have defined themselves inconvincible. real sceptics (which do exist) have a problem with model predictions, not some tin foil hat conspiracy of the observational record or the scientists reporting it.

leave the strawmen to burn and let the rationalists get on with debating risk.

Clownfish, you are on the ball (to use a cricketing term) with your reference to the recent Steig furore. Would you please quote a weblink for it.

The Spectator has a long analysis of the Steig furore here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6705193/breaking-the-ice.thtml

Some pertinent quotes:

'The battle has implications far beyond Antarctica. It has exposed a real problem of bias in scientific journals.

'Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed it ... it took a group of amateurs, independent from conformist institutions and funding, to spot and correct the flaws. None of them deny that man is warming the globe to some extent; but they have grown increasingly frustrated by the distortion, exaggeration and sloppy methods being used to support a preconceived conclusion.

'All this fits a disturbing new trend in the scientific literature on climate. Papers that come to lukewarm or sceptical conclusions are published, if at all, only after the insertion of catechistic sentences to assert their adherence to orthodoxy. Last year, a paper in Nature Geosciences concluded heretically that ‘it is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide’ (high sensitivity underpins the entire IPCC argument), yet presaged this with the absurd remark: ‘Earth’s climate can only be stabilised by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the 21st century.’'

The alarmist can stop their crap for the time being. Pensioners and others will be paying for their silly little theories now that Bob Gillard is putting his/her tax on them. The game is over and the bribes have been paid. The poor Pakistan cricketers who have been banned for bowling no balls at the appropriate time have nothing on the 'scientist'who have manipulated and fudged data. The gullible contiue to believe because its suits their Green faith dogmas and fills the coffers of the corrupt UN.The losers are true scientist who have to shut up or find a real job.

thanks for proving
both sides have their clowns

i have not seen so much spin for a while..
[stop trying to text me]

any relationship between performance
and form..as far as climate changing goes
depends if the rules are followed..

[and clearly much past fraud indicates poor form]
agrivated by much spin and a lot of hot air

sending out commentators to play..dosnt help either
its funny your side choses to field a team of experts on everything but 'climate'..

your correct that form involves a lot of math
but even the math is dogey
[its not like you got any runs on the board even there]

your admiring her form sounds perverse
its hard to follow your spin..[let me explain]

''an unplayable ball.''
take the blue pill

""But if she gets out""
[toomuch]
she will be called all sorts of names

""to a simply played delivery""
nine months after,

""and especially if she has been making a habit of this,""
[is or was in the church

""we explain this
by her being in poor form.""

didnt your mum tell you
its poor form to judge others?

you bowled a no ball
pitched too wide ..off your middle stump

and made the femails batting side
look like they are supporting your silly mid off point

you slapped the cover off
and still caught out

out for a duck
now..your off the team

ever thought.. of playing marbles?

Ummmm, point of order, Raycom

>>Clownfish, you are on the ball (to use a cricketing term)...<<

Cricketers "keep their eye on the ball", it is true.

But the phrase "on the ball", meaning someone who is alert and aware of his surroundings, has more resonance in football (the soccer variety). It is a game where the player with the ball at his feet is "on the ball", and all the rest of his team are "off the ball".

The phrase itself most probably came to us from baseball.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ont5.htm

Sounds like a lot of balls to me ;)

Well clap,clap for the handy capped:) So all this victory celebrations because of the tax that will still be needed to clean up the mess that humans and our growing populations are, and always will cause. How small-minded you all are:) your all still in the sh!t! lol. water and ice are blending.....LOL. How have you won?....lol. think some just don't want the boat rocked, so there retirement can end in peace...lol..heads in the sand wont make what 7 billion people and what they do each day, go away:) Fools.

Ok! Time out for both sides..... concerning Climate change, for now.

Negative no proof does not mean middle stump and out:) Our populations will eat this planet alive, or is that just a con as well...lol.....you have won Nothing!

Confusion! On the......What!...?, You don't like the tax....BOB/Gill are on the ball, and you oil junkies will have to ween off, and in the end.....all will have to become GREEN IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN THE FUTURE.

Interesting since that's all you have. I like how they all shoot themselves in the foot with" Pollution is killing this planet slowly." Thanks to A 597.....!7 to 10 billion( less than 40 years ) people all burning, wasting, needing more space= chopping down tree,s,= more and more and more that we cant afford to loose. Yes! your all winners....LOL....Whats wrong?

Cant see the future......the greens can.

Dont be fooled by these, these,......I don't know what to call them, but its not smart-thinking:)

Capitalist pigs:)....The blind leading the blind......lol...and all the posters that think their smiling......lol.....must only have 20 or less years to live:)

God its hard at the top:)

BLUE:)

deep blue, don't gloat too much .. the tax isn't in place and may never be in place.

"Cant see the future......the greens can."

Of course you can, and your future consists of no electricity, schools hospitals or any progress and a lot of pain and misery ..yay, victory dance for the little greenies.

Why not just go do that in some corner like Nimbin or Mullimbimby and leave the rest of us to get on with life eh?

Progress will not stop, it has always grown and always will - your green world is just a dream .. wait till you have kids and one of them gets sick and you need advanced medicine and care or a relative gets cancer and needs nuclear medicine .. you might reflect on the world you want to inflict on others then

The major polluters are you and I, not major corporations .. the greens try to make it appear as if there should be a common enemy, but the reality is we are all polluters .. look at the 3rd world. The nature of our lives is to create and use and leave pollution, unavoidable, it's impossible not to pollute in some form.

But I digress, so your green plan is to destroy Australia .. what a goal eh, your parents must be so proud

i cant recall how many fluff and spin articles i have read
they have in common not much detail[detail can be refuted]
so they comeup with spin

it dosnt take much thought to link cricket to spin

""we explain this by her being in poor form.""

i explain this redirection
in lue of hard uptodate science as being in poor form

but love how you go from poor form
to this

""Just so with the climate and the weather.""

just so with alarmists
all chosing an angle
in lue of playing the ball

''By definition,the climate is the long term average of the weather.""

yes [we didnt know this]

""But we
also think of the climate
as the collection of natural forces
(sea surface temperatures, wind circulation patterns, humidity etc) which causes..(and thus explains)..the weather we have.""

expanding definitions is why you favour spin

recall you described global cooling[ie the ozone hole ]
then global warnming [tikll it was revealed there was more cooling]

now you reralised the 'climate is all ways changing'
and we get climate change[any change of season is now proof for the ignorant]

""If over a period of some years
the weather changes from what it has previously been, becoming hotter, say, or wetter, or even more varied, by definition the climate has changed.""

the data changed
the reaason for the season
[el nino/la nina southernn ossilation[sun cycle]
..went through its cycle

""We should have
no more trouble in saying this
than we do in saying that if our batswoman's performance changes, then so does her form.""

yes she missed her cycle
and now is a mother

""Similarly if the weather changes
in some particular way that shows a definite trend,
we should not have any trouble in saying this is caused by a change in the climate.""

[it was a trend
all trends end]

weather comes in cycles
every season has its reason

RPG

Calling us "The human virus" is putting our masses lightly, when seeing the damage that's happening ever so slowly mind you "some say" and the climate changes all can see/read, no-one would say its not happening RPG....and with the numbers of people on the planet now-days, some things going to break. Australian,s are concerned about the amount of boat-people that are coming now lol...Just wait! this century will show just how bad its really going to get.

We are geographical blessed, and the rest of the world knows it.

RPG.....your not trying to convince all who are watching, that Senator Bob Brown would (if put into power) would turn the whole system up-side-down? he would be drawn and quartered by the public and be shot down as the worst PM ever in Australia,s history.

However it is very un-likely the tax will go forward, however to have that Green-mindedness at hand, is a must for the human survival, and not to mention.....to be the third person in all this "all you can eat fest" ( Minerals/resources ) , when calling upon commonsensical values, in such a needed time.

http://tinyurl.com/4fd9pwz

http://tinyurl.com/4nkfc55

See by 2020 and all systems return to normal, its all called off.

However, if by 2020 and its not just cycle, I hope you don't live on a island:)

BLUE:)

Well, someone from the god-loving people cult, have just destroyed one of my computers. This is their so-called love. The religious truth of loving people have just given me the evident s I,ve needed. Thanks:) See you in court:)

Got-cha! A trace is now under-way.

I hope you like jail.

Blue

[Deleted. Off topic]

So, Pericles, you say that it is not cricket. The same could be said of Nature's original article, but 'unethical' would be more apt.

I think the second analogy is dodgy, and as I get an oblique mention in the article, I'm happy to buy into the argument. The problem with peer review and global warming is that the global warming hysterics deny that anything that isn't peer reviewed isn't worth discussing. This is like suggesting that because X just scored three successive tons for the Queensland Bulls that we have no right discussing why the selectors left him out of the team, or to call for new selectors if they don't select him.

But of course, while there is a limit to the number of people who can play in a cricket team, there is a much less finite limit to the number of people who can mount a scientific argument. So while you need a selection process for determining who is in a cricket team and can't allow non-selectes players to add themselves to the team, the same doesn't apply to argument.

Something else on point which I have just come across is this email. Note the novel peer review process - much like I have been suggesting, an it's an email from Michael's university!

From: James Ward [mailto:James.Ward@unisa.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2011 9:15 AM
To: Blanked out
Subject: Fossil fuel constraints to climate change - discussion



Colleagues,



You may be interested in our open discussion paper in Hydrology & Earth System Sciences:

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/8/2627/2011/hessd-8-2627-2011.html



We have reviewed the literature on fossil fuel production and greenhouse gas emissions, and conclude that high emissions scenarios are probably unrealistic for use in climate change projections, and basic “limits to growth” will most likely see us following the low emissions pathway (carbon tax or no carbon tax!).



Two things may be of interest to you:

1. The controversial argument itself, which (if accepted) has widespread implications for research into climate change impacts

2. The open access peer review process, where the discussion paper will be available for scientific comment until 3rd May, before revision and final publication in the main journal (ERA ranking: A). All review comments and author replies remain online and publicly accessible.



I intend to direct my 3rd year Environmental Engineering students to the discussion, so that they can witness the peer review process “live”.



Feel free to distribute this among your networks.



Cheers,



James Ward

Lecturer, Water & Environmental Engineering

School of Natural & Built Environments, Room P2-35

University of South Australia

Phone: 61 8 8302 3128

Fax: 61 8 8302 5082

The authors analogy is misleading.

Simply a cricketers performance and form is analysed over a very short term ... hours and days to maybe a maximum of 10 years.

To be a fair analogy the author needs to specify the time periods for which he analyses and compares weather and climate.

That's quite an impossible task!

Keith, "climate" is the trend in "weather" over time periods that filter the noise (e.g. natural variability) from the signal (unnatural variabilty) - in context this is about 30 years. Why do you think this is an impossible task?

Way way to many variables.

Take the latest cyclone season in Queensland. It was supposed to have had 6 cyclones. Predicted by the BOM

We had a traditional moonsoon even ( not predicted by the BOM), common 30 years ago, three rain depressions (Not predicted by the BOM) and (evidence now shows) a cat 3 cyclone (Predicted to be a cat 5 by the BOM). Wooohooo big deal, nothing has really changed in the last 30 years.

We've also seen off one of the biggest droughts (not predicted by the BOM) in our recordrd history. A drought you alarmists a little while ago were saying was evidence of climate change.

We've pretty well always had extremes of wet and dry up here in Qld.

Now tell me is what has occured in Qld in the past 30 years a weather trend or form indicating climate change? Would you need a longer period to determine that and how long a period?

Now if you can answer those questios you'll be better than all the supposed weather and climate experts in the BOM ... cos they won't even attempt it!

Bonmot, after more than US$100 billion and 20 years of searching, scientists and others have not succeeded in filtering out and measuring the unnatural variability. In fact, they will not be able to even after 30 years, as there is no compelling scientific evidence that validates the IPCC's AGW hypothesis.