Comments on: The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/ Tackling tribal groupthink Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Government Science: Cowed and Corrupted by Politics | National Broadside http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-162149 Government Science: Cowed and Corrupted by Politics | National Broadside Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:05:01 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-162149 [...] For a report on CSIRO drought alarmism see: [...] [...] For a report on CSIRO drought alarmism see: [...]

Report this

00

]]> By: tps http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-85283 tps Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:52:20 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-85283 How, in general, does the sceptical view reach more people? I would love to see Jo Nova using her knowledge and alluring communication skills in a newspaper column dedicated to the subject of Climate Change. Jo would certainly be credentialed as a writer and she demonstrates way more erudition and investigative skills than do the columnists we see ringing the climate alarm bells. Given the prominence of Climate Change and the inundation of propaganda that one receives, a weekly column from the opposing side would hardly be too much. I believe it would sell newspapers. How, in general, does the sceptical view reach more people? I would love to see Jo Nova using her knowledge and alluring communication skills in a newspaper column dedicated to the subject of Climate Change. Jo would certainly be credentialed as a writer and she demonstrates way more erudition and investigative skills than do the columnists we see ringing the climate alarm bells. Given the prominence of Climate Change and the inundation of propaganda that one receives, a weekly column from the opposing side would hardly be too much. I believe it would sell newspapers.

Report this

00

]]> By: substanti8 http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-41151 substanti8 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:11:38 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-41151 [snip... anonymous substanti-whatever - you can't throw insults at us without backing them up. So time for you to name and explain that evidence we deny, or apologize. All your posts on any topic will be held indefinitely until you are able to do one or the other. You need to convince us that you can reason and are worth listening too. - JN] [snip... anonymous substanti-whatever - you can't throw insults at us without backing them up. So time for you to name and explain that evidence we deny, or apologize. All your posts on any topic will be held indefinitely until you are able to do one or the other. You need to convince us that you can reason and are worth listening too. - JN]

Report this

00

]]> By: Mark D. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39922 Mark D. Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:11:24 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39922 Oxspit, may I suggest that even if it was not intentional, the fact is they could very easily add additional words to suggest that this is not at all unusual or unprecedented rainfall (or drought)? In other words, make it hard for a skeptic to point out something that "could" be misleading. If there is no hidden agenda then why not say that clearly?" Oxspit, may I suggest that even if it was not intentional, the fact is they could very easily add additional words to suggest that this is not at all unusual or unprecedented rainfall (or drought)?

In other words, make it hard for a skeptic to point out something that “could” be misleading. If there is no hidden agenda then why not say that clearly?”

Report this

10

]]> By: Oxspit http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39826 Oxspit Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:30:48 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39826 What they said, Ken, is what the available rainfall data actually supports. I'm sorry you feel my insistence on interpreting sentences based the accepted meaning of the words in them is twisting words. Perhaps, in light of the fact that you have not actually found the inconsistency you seemed to be trying to pin on me, you should consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your confusion is down to your own misunderstanding rather than someone actively trying to deceive you. Actual science can, after all, be complicated and the accurate communication of it difficult. Have a nice day. What they said, Ken, is what the available rainfall data actually supports. I’m sorry you feel my insistence on interpreting sentences based the accepted meaning of the words in them is twisting words. Perhaps, in light of the fact that you have not actually found the inconsistency you seemed to be trying to pin on me, you should consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your confusion is down to your own misunderstanding rather than someone actively trying to deceive you. Actual science can, after all, be complicated and the accurate communication of it difficult.

Have a nice day.

Report this

10

]]> By: Ken Stewart http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39799 Ken Stewart Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:11:15 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39799 Oxspit, suit yourself, you're the one twisting your own words, not me. The post is about the CSIRO omitting to mention the long term fluctuations in rainfall and temperature, thus giving a misleading impression about long term trends. I guess we should agree to disagree. Oxspit, suit yourself, you’re the one twisting your own words, not me. The post is about the CSIRO omitting to mention the long term fluctuations in rainfall and temperature, thus giving a misleading impression about long term trends.
I guess we should agree to disagree.

Report this

00

]]> By: Oxspit http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39773 Oxspit Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:41:20 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39773 Ken, 'change' and 'uniform increase/decrease' are two different things. If some places see increases and some places see decreases, then this is 'change', but not a 'uniform increase/decrease', for instance. <blockquote>There is no stability in Australia’s rainfall, and there never has been. </blockquote> In the sense that rainfall data is always going to look noisy, I suppose this is true, and nothing that has been said by either myself or the CSIRO report disputes that. Further, I'm sure there IS a fruitfull discussion to be had about how significant what we see above is etc.. and if you wish to engage in one, fair enough. Go ahead. But the post about which we speak is not such a discussion. It is an accusation that the CSIRO is engaging in active deception. The case it makes is worse than just weak. I believe I have pointed that out. Ken,

‘change’ and ‘uniform increase/decrease’ are two different things. If some places see increases and some places see decreases, then this is ‘change’, but not a ‘uniform increase/decrease’, for instance.

There is no stability in Australia’s rainfall, and there never has been.

In the sense that rainfall data is always going to look noisy, I suppose this is true, and nothing that has been said by either myself or the CSIRO report disputes that. Further, I’m sure there IS a fruitfull discussion to be had about how significant what we see above is etc.. and if you wish to engage in one, fair enough. Go ahead. But the post about which we speak is not such a discussion. It is an accusation that the CSIRO is engaging in active deception. The case it makes is worse than just weak. I believe I have pointed that out.

Report this

00

]]> By: Ken Stewart http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39757 Ken Stewart Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:11:13 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39757 Oxspit "They are not claiming that rainfall uniformly increased or decreased across Australia all of a sudden" No, but you did. You said- "stability followed by rapid change" . You're changing your tack each time but you can't squirm out of that one. Everyone here agrees that climate changes, rainfall patterns change, temperatures change. There is no stability in Australia's rainfall, and there never has been. We will continue to get long droughts and flooding rains. In different places, at different times. By the way, if you think the recent drought was pretty bad, consider the findings from the coral cores on the Barrier Reef- from the mid 1760s to mid 1780s was extremely dry. It's all happened before. Oxspit
“They are not claiming that rainfall uniformly increased or decreased across Australia all of a sudden”
No, but you did. You said- “stability followed by rapid change” . You’re changing your tack each time but you can’t squirm out of that one.
Everyone here agrees that climate changes, rainfall patterns change, temperatures change. There is no stability in Australia’s rainfall, and there never has been. We will continue to get long droughts and flooding rains. In different places, at different times.
By the way, if you think the recent drought was pretty bad, consider the findings from the coral cores on the Barrier Reef- from the mid 1760s to mid 1780s was extremely dry. It’s all happened before.

Report this

00

]]> By: Oxspit http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39754 Oxspit Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:52:19 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39754 Graeme, Graeme, Graeme... @ <blockquote>What the CSIRO and the BOM did was lying by ommission. No-one is interested in your feeble sophistry Ox-saliva. </blockquote> What you call feeble sophistry, I call elementary mathematics. <blockquote>Are you claiming that this is NOT a dishonest, irresponsible and sackable offense? How so?</blockquote> Indeed I am claiming that. How so? In precisely the manner I detailed in my previous post. Did you actually read it? I feel I need to ask, because you don't seem to have actually responded to it. How about you try actually responding to arguments people actually make rather than just hurling your mindless insults and walking off on tangential rants about Monica Lewinski and leftist scum. There's a good chap. This is supposed to at least superficially APPEAR to be a science communication blog, after all. Graeme, Graeme, Graeme… @

What the CSIRO and the BOM did was lying by ommission. No-one is interested in your feeble sophistry Ox-saliva.

What you call feeble sophistry, I call elementary mathematics.

Are you claiming that this is NOT a dishonest, irresponsible and sackable offense? How so?

Indeed I am claiming that. How so? In precisely the manner I detailed in my previous post. Did you actually read it? I feel I need to ask, because you don’t seem to have actually responded to it. How about you try actually responding to arguments people actually make rather than just hurling your mindless insults and walking off on tangential rants about Monica Lewinski and leftist scum. There’s a good chap. This is supposed to at least superficially APPEAR to be a science communication blog, after all.

Report this

00

]]> By: Oxspit http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#comment-39753 Oxspit Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:42:08 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=7745#comment-39753 Ken_Stewart@105 <blockquote>Look at the time series graphs for rainfall on the BOM site. Please tell us where (except for a steady decline in SW of WA) there is any “stability followed by rapid change.” No? Didn’t think so. Australian rainfall is characterised by great lack of stability.</blockquote> I did look at those graphs. I agree, the kind of change the CSIRO is talking about is not readily apparent on them.... just as you would not expect it to be. They are not claiming that rainfall uniformly increased or decreased across Australia all of a sudden, nor did they claim it did in any given state necessarily. State borders are an artificial boundary placed for political, rather than meteorologically significant, reasons. What they claimed is that rainfall patterns appear to have undergone a marked change. The map re-posted by JoNova illustrates the change, and the longer trend-map bears out their claims as per my previous post. Ken_Stewart@105

Look at the time series graphs for rainfall on the BOM site. Please tell us where (except for a steady decline in SW of WA) there is any “stability followed by rapid change.” No? Didn’t think so. Australian rainfall is characterised by great lack of stability.

I did look at those graphs. I agree, the kind of change the CSIRO is talking about is not readily apparent on them…. just as you would not expect it to be. They are not claiming that rainfall uniformly increased or decreased across Australia all of a sudden, nor did they claim it did in any given state necessarily. State borders are an artificial boundary placed for political, rather than meteorologically significant, reasons. What they claimed is that rainfall patterns appear to have undergone a marked change. The map re-posted by JoNova illustrates the change, and the longer trend-map bears out their claims as per my previous post.

Report this

10

]]>