JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The Australian gets serious

In Hot and Bothered, the Australian has ramped up the descriptors of the hacked emails from the CRU. The terms are  appropriate: “apparent fraud”, “disturbing”, “doctoring evidence”, and “scandal”.

This is a story finally that the media just cannot ignore.

Nick Minchin is also elevated to unofficial chief climate change sceptic of Australia, a post that didn’t exist yesterday. Suddenly unconvinced people have credibility.

“Minchin says the apparent fraud signifies a “rather disturbing culture, at least in the East Anglia CRU, which is one of most significant in the world in terms of determining outcomes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

“For those who don’t think the IPCC should be taken as gospel, this does confirm that we shouldn’t be unquestioning of the opinions of the UN committee.”

Brendan O’Keefe also collects comments together from Ian Plimer, Phil Jones, Minister Penny Wong, Kevin Trenberth (“I feel violated”), as well as Tom Nelson,  Tim Ball, Greg Hunt (opposition climate change spokesman) et moi. Yes, a whole paragraph.

Finally, a major paper is investigating, and it’s just in time. Today is D-Day for Turnbull. A big day in Australian politics. The Rudd government hands down a new version of the ETS, but there are only three sitting days left in the parliamentary year.

This is what it comes down to. At the current rate of increase it will take 3,000 years for carbon dioxide levels to hit a record (atmospherically) but we’ve only got three days to consider how we will change almost every transaction in our economy. With three millenia on the clock before we hit uncharted territory, you’d think we could wait just one more election cycle.

It’s also the day the second Skeptics Handbook will appear publicly in hard copy, thanks to Graeme Campbell who has flown over to distribute it to our Senators. The former member of The Labor Party, then independent member for Kalgoorlie, volunteered to give out copies of both versions of The Skeptics Handbook I & II. All up, 600 booklets will be roaming Parliament House tomorrow. Let’s just hope a few get read by the right people.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The Australian gets serious , 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2dcnxol

44 comments to The Australian gets serious

  • #

    In the US game of football, we would call this a Hail Mary play. Seconds on the clock with the clock still ticking. Third down. Thirty yards to the goal. The prospective receiver is almost behind the goal line. No more timeouts left. The Quarterback is about to be sacked. He launches the ball just in time. Does the receiver receive? Is the winning touchdown completed? Tune in tomorrow or the next day or the next for the exciting conclusion.

    At the very least, we have given it our best shot. Our work is not done even if the ETS is killed. “They” will bring it back under a different disguise and try to sneak it past. They have billions of our money and abundant time to play with. We are doing what we do out of our own resources while we have to earn a living and live our lives. Its the same ploy their type has used for over 150 years to get their programs passed.

    00

  • #

    Well done Joanne, thankyou for all the hard work you and others around you are doing!

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    You guys in Aussie are so lucky. Your mainstream media is running this as a story about scientific integrity and credibility. In NZ they are stuck on the issue of computer systems being hacked or the data being leaked. They have not questioned the issues at stake.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    “This is a story finally that the media just cannot ignore.”

    But they are ignoring it. This is hopeless. This is a tradgedy unfolding and there’s nothing that can stop it. Once this legislation passes, Australia will set a dire precedent for the rest of the world. I surely hope other countries leaders are not as stupid as ours.

    How far this rabbit-hole goes, who knows…

    00

  • #

    In one stroke, a hacker has provided affirmation of all the charges levied by skeptics/realists/deniers over the past 20 or so years in full view of a disinterested press.

    The sad truth is that a competent unbiased media could have ferreted this out long ago. And predictably, in the US, our media “circle the wagons”, claiming this is no big deal and try to brush it aside. That horse won’t ride.

    The people will find out … no thanks to the conspiracy of media, pseudo-science, fraudulent “environmental” organizations, and power-grabbing politicians.

    It is refreshing to see that “down under” there is more public media examination of the issue.

    In a sane world, all these participants (from James “Bernie Madoff” Hansen to Gavin Schmidt to Michael Mann to Al Gore to Andrew Revkin to Phil Jones and the lot of them) would be pulled off their horses and put out of action until a complete and thorough independent and unbiased investigation of this massive scandal were complete.

    Truth-seekers must not let up on the pressure. An international outrage of this magnitude also demands an immediate, complete and thorough external investigation of the IPCC’s activities.

    Criminal conspiracy (RICO Act in the US) charges should be filed where they can if sufficient evidence is uncovered because of the massive public funding (theft based on false pretenses) this scam has generated.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    A quick comment – the various state climate departments were set up years ago, and I still recall listening to public servants on the Fremantle line train tallking about setting up an emissions scheme way back in 2005. I’ve also noticed that the Australian Fabians have started to revamo and update their website – two years ago it was rather dead. As Lord Monckton has noticed, they suddenly have seem to have developed the courage to come out into the open – so, hackneyed or not, and given the RUdd/Wong intransigence on this, I think the rudder on the jolly ship Fabian social democracy has been given an unexpected turn in the wrong direction. I also wonder whether Australia is viewed as a test case to get this type of legislation through?

    I previously stated that the ALP had a mandate on this – but as the basis of that mandate AGW, is now shown to be at least incomplete, if not wrong, then the ALP loses its mandate and the ETS must be vigorously opposed.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    This material was most likely not hacked. It is well organized and sorted for release as if by an informed insider.

    Hacked is an excuse that the Jones group wants to call it. The credibility of the “peer review” group has dropped to near zero. It is clear they e-mail each other and use leverage to keep storeis and data from certain publications. It would be a shame if people don’t take a time out and sift thru temps and reports and treat them as if they are infected with false data and models.
    There is clearly fraud within the CRU and it will need to be brought out.

    00

  • #
    bill-tb

    It’s the fraud stupid … The BBC has admitted they had the files for a month. Were they the requester? And why did they sit on it for a month, are they not journalists?

    00

  • #

    bill-tb: “And why did they [the BBC] sit on it for a month, are they not journalists?”

    They are postmodern journalists. Things don’t happen until they report it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Where do they say they had them for a month? I thought the latest emails in the hack were from only about 13th Nov?

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Mal Talkbull, loyal goldman sachs BASTARD and seditious Australian , pockets krudds pieces of silver whilst gleefully excerting his revenge for Australias rejection of bananna republic 1, by coniving with krudd on the ETS. I`d pray, if I had a god , that the rank and file conservatives cross the floor…. regardless, we cannot stand by as this catastrophe is unfurled silently over us. No subscription to the spurious notion of AGW and all it encompasses. No to ETS. No to the insidious UN and their intended global governance. They garner a most uncivil revolt.

    00

  • #

    I’ve forwarded “The Skeptics Handbook” to my MP, member of our Conservative government here in Canada. As well, I’ve forwarded links to both handbooks to several key members of the media.

    Revelations of the conspiracy at Hadley have set the blogoshpere on fire over here, but so far the mainstream media have been avoiding it pretty much outright.

    Fox News in the US is giving it air time, and featured an interview with Christopher C. Horner, author of the must read“Red Hot Lies”, and Howard Gould of the Clean Economy Network. By the time it was over, Horner had Gould a tad bit rattled.

    I sure hope this grows the legs it deserves, and brings this ungodly scam to an end!

    Awesome website, Joanne!

    Best from Canada!
    Springer

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Here’s the latest from Andrew Bolt…

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1269.last

    It’s good to see Monbiot state this..It made Me :)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I thought you guys would appreciate this from Kev:

    “Mr Rudd challenged the Opposition to back the amended scheme, describing the issue of climate change as a “fundamental, existential question”.

    where my dictionary tells me existential can mean pertaining to existence, but also pertaining to existantialism, which is:

    “a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism”.

    So Rudd describes the issue of climate change as the issue of our time that is opposed to rationalism and empiricism… hmm.

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Just in case you missed this!

    Flaws revealed in climate change research

    Latest from the Geophysical Research Letters about the Murray Darling Basin

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1271.last

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Denny – Franks was part of the team of 4 that went in with Fielding earlier in the year in that meeting with Wong. This is hardly breaking news from a confirmed skeptic he has been saying exactly this same line for years.

    That whole argument about evaporation v temps is very strange. Is he suggesting that when the temps are higher whatever moisture is in the soil evaporates more slowly?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Jo – when you said “The former member of The Labor Party, then independent member for Kalgoorlie” helped you distribute your booklets, you forgot to add that he then founded the Australia First Party, and then later ran for One Nation, and was a fan of Australians Against Further Immigration. Don’t sell the guy short.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    For what it’s worth… made it to the ABC, somewhat watered down:

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2751864.htm

    In one email in 1999, Phil Jones, the director of the research unit, admitted he’d used a non-traditional system to display data in a published paper.

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    After a slow start… Hadley Hoaxsters Headline on Drudge!!!!!!!
    US senator Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on “Climategate” on Washington Times Americas Morning Show. mass increasing!

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Denny:

    At #13 you refer to Monbiot having a degree of conversion.

    Monbiot has repeatedly vilified those of us who have been championing the cause of science against the unfounded climate scare. He is not alone in such behaviour.

    Climate realists and our work have been vilified and smeared. Entire web sites have been established to tell lies about us. Publication of our scientific work has been inhibited, and personal attacks have been the norm: for example, I have had computer systems damaged by concerted attacks, Lomborg has had a pie pushed in his face, some (e.g. Tenekes, Michaels, etc.) have had their employment terminated, and Tim Ball has had death threats.

    Monbiot seems to be covering himself now what has been happening is plain for all to see as a result of the stolen (?) CRU files having been released.

    Jones, Briffa and Mann seem to have committed several criminal offences. These include:

    Misappropriation of public funds
    They deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is criminal fraud under English Law.

    Deliberate attempt to prevent disclosure of information that was requested under the FOI Act
    They colluded to destroy information that was the subject of an FOI request. This is a criminal offence under English Law.

    These two offences will do for starters, but there are others, too. Indeed, both of the above offences can be doubled by charging the alleged miscreants with conspiracy in each case.

    Jones, Briffa and Mann should be prosecuted as a warning to others who would pervert science as a method to promote a political agenda.

    However, there is little probability that the Crown Prosecution Service will charge the alleged miscreants. It is more likely that the alleged miscreants will be awarded Knighthoods.

    And those like Monbiot who colluded in all of this will say, “We did not know”.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Following up with the previous post, this morning I published:

    James E. Hansen: The “Bernie Madoff” of Climate Science?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Further to 8 and 9, in terms of the BBC having the emails for a month… some clarification on that old chestnut from my favourite and yours, Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/no_bbc_was_not_sent_the_stolen.php#comments

    the BBC journo was referring to the emails he was party to in the “hack” which were emailed on 12 October. he was sent them as he was cc’d in to the emails in question, not because he was sent the hacked file a month early.

    Sheesh guys for skeptics you sure swallow anything that vaguely supports your case no matter how unbased in reality it is.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Mattb,

    Stop bleating on with sh!t.

    Got any EVIDENCE that human Co2 is causing global warming? All you are doing is trying to avoid the main question we all need an answer to. You call us “skeptics”. YOU ARE GULLIBLE. Congratulations.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Dean – sorry mate but there is a clearly incorrect statement in post #8, with a sly dig response in post #9 and I’ve corrected it. Got a problem with that you can have a good old whinge if you like – need a tissue?

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    “Got any EVIDENCE that human Co2 is causing global warming?”

    Answer this or please move on.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    What is “human Co2″? Is it some Co2 that has evolved in to a human-like species?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    But for the record I’ve stated months and months ago on this blog that I have no “evidence” other than that which I trust Jo has examined and rejected in her examination of the available science. So no according to what has been set out in this blog “no further evidence your honour.” I’ve moved on from an endless loop of what is or is not evidence, I’m comfortable with that.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Ok, I will spell it out for you:

    Specifically, we’d like evidence that Co2 released into the atmosphere by humans is responsible for causing dangerous global warming.

    I guess you are just an obfuscator. No different to any other AGW alarmist zealot. Never debate the science. Never talk about evidence. That’s your motto, right Matt?

    You think that by talking crap for long enough, people will start to believe your nonsense. Perhaps you should go elsewhere and find some people who are unfamiliar with your stupidity – it might give them a few laughs. I’d say I speak for a majority of the members of this blog when I say, we are sick to death of reading your dribble.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Dean if you think I have evidence that has not been published in the peer reviewed science and used by the IPCC and general scientific bodies to reach the conclusions that global warming is a genuine concern then you are dreaming. You don;t think any of that is evidence – fair enough – you seem upset that I don’t see the need to repeat that argument. I’m comfortable that there are people who don’t think that evidence has been produced – fair enough. I don’t have a backyard stash on un-reviewed papers that I’m waiting to shock the world with either.

    Fer chrissakes this blog is full of the rantings of dribble of people (some not all) who are happy to spout totally unbackable claims regularly (such as the BBC had the emails a month in advance) and you seem happy enough with that, but have a problem with me correcting them with facts and accurate statements? Interesting. I’d like to see a genuine critique of any of my recent posts to be honest, rather than you trot out the tired old line of “do I have any evidence”… my answer is I have no evidence that the blog authour does not know about and has dismissed. happy?

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    I am happy with that. Thanks for admitting you are a an imbecile. Have a nice day.

    00

  • #
    Steve

    I don’t get it?!?

    I was out at lunch today, in Sunny old Wellington (yeah right :) ), and I mentioned the UEA CRU hack and that I was skeptical of the IPCC’s claim made in the AR4 summary for policy makers. My workmates seemed a bit shocked, they wondered if I thought we’d landed on the moon or if I thought 9/11 had been an inside job. I was asked indignantly if I was a “Denier”? I said no because I wasn’t sure, what, exactly I was meant to be denying.

    It seemed strange to me that something that I see as a purely scientific question has become so political. Sure I know the stakes are high on both sides of the debate but I’m not sure they would have reacted the same way if I’d said I felt the Higgs Boson didn’t exist.

    I’m willing to accept that earth’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around 3C. The theory requires some complications (see aerosol uncertainties and virtually unknown LW and SW cloud feedbacks to name a few) but I guess it’s possible. I’m much more comfortable with the view that climate varies naturally and can explain most of the warming we saw during the latter part of the 20th century; man being a bit part player and maybe contributing some but not much of the observed warming.

    But why is it that I felt chagrined for expressing some doubt? Why did I feel it was so un-PC to consider that maybe we don’t really know exactly how earth’s climate works. That there are some inconsistencies in the IPCC’s claims that need further investigating.

    It seems you can be vilified for even considering that maybe this might not really be a crisis.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Steve, these people are unthinking automotons. They couldn’t be bothered looking into the details to see if it is real or not. They see AGW as a fashionable mode of thought. What they don’t realise is that they will be forever remembered as those who were accomplices in an attempt at using perverted science to bring a draconian tax on the masses.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Dean comment#30

    I rarely agree with Matt but I find that his comments are reasoned and polite. I think it is only fair that responses should be in kind. A true skeptic accepts different viewpoints and does not jump to conclusions based tortured facts or innuendo as seems to be the case with the unfolding CRU story. The truth is damning enough. To construe that his comments in 29# indicate that he is an imbecile is quite frankly imbecilic. Have a nice day.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Steve

    I’m willing to accept that earth’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around 3C.

    If you accept that then you fully support AGW theory no wonder Matt thinks this blog is full or rantings and drivel.

    Joanne the standards are really slipping.

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Hi Allen,

    There is a difference between Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and Climate Sensitivity (CS).
    I fully accept AGW I don’t fully accept that any scientist, or anyone, knows what CS is.

    But I think you said it best “A true skeptic accepts different viewpoints…”

    Cheers
    Steve

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Allen, reasoned and polite or not, Matt is only trying to nitpick and draw peoples attention away from the real issue. Time spent debating the semantics of individual posts is time wasted. Pretending that Matt is contributing to the discussion here is folly.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Allen @ Post 34,

    Steve does not represent all people’s opinions. You are inferring that because one person makes a contradictory post that the “standards are slipping”. Steve’s standards may be slipping but that has no relation to this site as a whole.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Steve
    A major issue with CC is climate sensitivity. Most people accept that the doubling of Co2 on its own can add about 1c to the temperature. Alarmists are are proposing that positive forcings will see a 3c rise for each doubling of Co2 and if this is the case then AGW as a theory is proven and it would be appropriate to take measures to reduce Co2 levels.
    Prominent skeptical scientists Lindzen, Hoffman et al propose that climate sensitivity is in the region of .5 to .6 and therefore a doubling of Co2 will only lead to a .6c rise. I am inclined to agree with them based on the evidence at this stage. This suggests that Co2 do not present a problem and is in fact beneficial.
    Dean
    Following the revelations from the leak at CRU there have been quite a number of comments on this and other skeptic sites that have drawn conclusions that are wildly speculative and unsupported by evidence. The truth is damning enough and exaggeration and wild claims allow alarmists to dismiss us as conspiracy theorists and crackpots.
    With regard to Matt I am quite happy for him to comment here.He has differing opinions to my own particularly with regard to AGW but I confess to enjoying the irony and sarcasm in some of his comments.If you fell he is a distraction just ignore him let’s leave ad. hom. attacks and censorship to the alarmist sites.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Most people accept that the doubling of Co2 on its own can add about 1c to the temperature.

    Only if you ignore saturation effects. The CO2 can’t absorb more power than is available in those specific bands where CO2 does absorb infra red.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Yes, Allen, agreed on that point & and about climate sensitivity. Much more ‘believable’ based on actual observations. The problem for alarmists with Lindzen is that he is a voice of reason who totally takes the alarm out of their theories.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Tel
    I should have said a doubling from preindustrial levels.

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Sorry but I’m not sure my standards are slipping. Nor do I think my statement was a contradiction.

    All I was trying to say was it’s possible that 2C02 forces a 3C rise in global mean temperatures, however unlikely. It requires the confluence of so many factors that it is virtually unbelievable but I stand by that statement.

    Yeah, I know the 2C02 no feedback scenario is 1C. I also know that Lindzen & Choi [2009] show in their paper, using the ERBE & CERES satellites, the climate’s response to warming (any warming not just GHG forced) is to actually act to dampen that warming. i.e. the a negative feedback scenario. I mean that makes sense to me, if the earth really had tipping points, as some would claim, and a run-away greenhouse effect was just round the corner, why didn’t it happen in the past when the world was much warmer than today and had as much as 10x CO2 in the atmosphere. The Anthropic principle really nips that in the bud.

    Now, Anthropogenic Global Warming is almost certainly true. I mean if you accept humans are increasing the atmospheric content of CO2 and that that increase should lead to some warming then you accept AGW. I’m just of the view, Like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Singer etc, etc that it’s not a problem. I mean we had around 0.8C (if you trust the records) in the 20th century and I don’t think anyone thinks were in a crisis now. If all we’ll get from 2C02 is 0.5C then it’s just not a problem and we shouldn’t waste out time, money and effort.

    P.S.

    Allen, I wonder if you have also read Douglas and Christy [2009]. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html it’s interesting as the authors come to a similar conclusion to Lindzen about climate sensitivity. They get around 0.7 IIRC.

    Cheers
    Steve

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Steve @ 42 wrote: “It requires the confluence of so many factors that it is virtually unbelievable but I stand by that statement”

    That doesn’t make any sense.

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Hey, I never said English was my strong point :) .

    00