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

Glikson: descends to pseudo-psychology and projection?

Dr Andrew Glikson

Remember the Great Debate between myself and Dr Andrew Glikson?  He’s back – in Climate change denial: The misrepresentation of climate science he calls names, resorts to inventing a mental illness, creates strawmen whom he beats down mercilessly, all the while misrepresenting thousands of scientists who disagree with him, and making statements that can be proven false with a few seconds of Googling.

12.30 pm 14 December 2010. Hedley Bull Lecture Theatre 1
Australian National University

We are most fortunate that Brice Bosnich managed to pop in and report on what Glikson had to say (below). I wish I could have been there to hear Brice ask those questions….

Glikson knows the main Skeptic arguments, so why did he ignore them?

In the Great Debate of May 2010, Andrew Glikson and I exchanged replies in a five part series that took six weeks and amounted to over 17,000 words, 26 graphs, and dozens of references. It’s the only long serious climate debate in writing that I’m aware of. He was unable to provide convincing empirical evidence to back up his claims of impending catastrophe. He asked if he could respond again, I said: “please do”. But so far he hasn’t come back with an answer. In the six months since then he has kept a subdued profile, possibly licking his wounds. (It must be tough being beaten by a housewife.)

Here’s the bizarre thing: he knows what I’ve written — his response to it is in writing — so he can’t pretend to not have examined my skeptical arguments. He also knows he can’t answer my criticisms, and yet he stood up last week at ANU claiming he had examined “climate denial articles” and came to five conclusions which, dare I suggest, (is there any other word for it) are in… denial?

Then as if that is not enough, I now find that Brice Bosnich (as in, emeritus Professor Bosnich, fellow of the Royal Society) has presented a skeptical summary at ANU recently, which may have what inspired the Glikson anti-skeptic speech. So did Glikson respond by specifically talking to Brice’s points? Apparently not so much. Instead he savagely kicks down odd things he found on obscure internet sites or in letters to editors. It’s a kind of university reply to beer-and-barbeque skeptics, while Glikson ignores professorial skeptics, and dodges the skeptical points he can’t answer. As always, it is just another PR exercise dressed up as science.

The mental contortions for him to hang on to his faith in a theory are something to behold.

Is there a denier in the house?

Take this point: “Skeptics avoid peer review articles”.  Like wow. Seriously? You have to go out of your way to find skeptics arguments without peer review references or links to articles with peer reviewed references in there somewhere.

If Dr Glikson had done a Google search for the blindingly obvious keyword combo: “climate skeptics, peer reviewed literature,” in just 0.28 seconds he would have turned up 800 peer reviewed papers (and that’s just the second link). As it happens, he didn’t even have to do that, as I collected, explained and listed 40 of the most important peer reviewed references for him in my replies to him in our debate. This is not just passive denial on his part, it’s active.

Who needs peer review when you have pop psychology?

Look out for “Climate Change Denial Syndrome”. Dr Glikson (paleo geologist) tries to avoid discussing climate science (you know, evidence and such) by labeling his opponents as quasi mentally ill. The handy thing about this is that it forestalls a scientific debate entirely. Thus the doctor of old rocks  invents a syndrome and plays psycho-analyst.

Yes, this is another case study in the intellectual collapse of Australian Universities.

Shame.

Brice Bosnich trekked along and this is his emailed summary of the event

Brice Bosnich

The ANU Climate Institute, led by re-tooled service crystallographer Director Will Steffen , put on a lecture on climate change denial by a member of the institute, Andrew Glikson, a re-tooled geologist. This lecture was, I think, in response to the two I gave the previous week, which seemed to have caused some disquiet among the believers who now needed some solace. This email is to an email buddy of mine in West Australia.

Title: Climate Change Denial and The Misrepresentation of Climate Science

———————————————————————-

Thought you might be interested in my reaction to Glikson’s lecture. As we went into the lecture hall there, at the door, was a large banner announcing the ANU Climate Institute. I sat up the front and could observe Mr Steffen. Glikson was introduced by Steffen and proceeded to the lectern in a pair of pants whose legs were at least 20 cm too long, and as a consequence the piled up pant legs gave the impression that he was walking on springs. As he spoke in a thick, gelatinous Polish accent, I could discern the approving nods of Mr Steffen.

What Glikson had apparently done was to trawl the internet and newspapers to find all sorts of scientific nonsense which purported to debunk AGW. Nonetheless our ever vigilant defender of the faith was there ready to slay the dragons of denial. After each stroke of his trusty intellectual sword he added a self-satisfied bon mot, which was appreciated by the admiring assemblage.

As the story unfolded he graced us with a farrago of falsehoods about the sorry state of the climate due, of course, to the perfidy of the deniers. Included among these terrifying events was that the earth’s poles were warming by 5 degrees C consistent with theory, the tropospheric temperature inversion (hot spot) was real as shown by Sherwood, there has been an increase in hurricanes, earth quakes, droughts, floods all as predicted and the oceans were rising from 0.1 mm/year in 1850 to over 3.0mm/year now. There were similar other incisive observations to support his case. He finished up by saying the press does a very poor job of giving the correct view of climate science, even the ABC is wanting in this regard.

At the end of the lecture I asked the first questions. I asked why he bothered to give the lecture because anyone could go to the internet and find scientifically outrageous nonsense from both sides of the argument. Answering this stuff was a pointless Sisphean task. He and Steffen appeared confused. I then asked from where he got the 5 degree C warming of the poles number, I also said there has been no increase in hurricane intensity nor in frequency recently, there has been no increase in droughts nor flooding over the last 100 years worldwide and… At this stage he stopped me because he said he could not remember “all those questions”. But he said that he would provide me with a reference showing how satellites measured the temperature at the poles. This was seconded by Steffen.

I pointed out that this would difficult since satellites did not measure beyond about 82 degrees L.

The two said it wasn’t so. I replied they should check the facts. Glikson then wanted to say that hurricanes had increased. I told him he should check the facts. At this stage Steffen asked, “what the other question was”. I declined to continue.

The other questions were from a congregation of true believers, one of whom claimed that your buddy Archibald did not know the difference between log 10 and the natural log, thereby showing the ignorance of the deniers.

Overall I left somewhat depressed, not because they clearly disapproved of my questions, but rather that this pathetic nonsense should be allowed to go on in a major university. I can live with Trenberth and others of the warmist crowd who do respectable science.

What did Mae West say? “Why don’t you come up and see me some time? Try Wednesday, that’s amateur night.”

Every night seems to be amateur night with this crowd.

— Brice

(I’ve added the emphasis – - JN)

UPDATE: Jan 25 2011 – The letter above has been edited to remove inconsequential but colourful “leggy blond” descriptors.

These “scientists” can’t think their way out of a paragraph

The muddy thinking starts with the press release. The core thesis is buried in an ambiguous passage which alternates between things he thinks skeptics do, and things he thinks skeptics claim his colleagues are doing.

An examination of climate denial articles indicates (A) departures from and alteration of instrumentally measured climate datasets, including temperature and CO2 measurements; (B) invention of paleo-climate “data”; (C) ignorance of the basic laws of physics and chemistry which govern the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system; (D) avoidance of the peer-reviewed literature; (E) objection to computer modelling (a method undertaken in almost every other field of science). No account is taken by the denial syndrome of the infrared absorption/emission resonance effects of over 320 Gigaton carbon (GtC) emitted by humans since 1750, which constitute more than 50% of the original inventory of the atmosphere.

Since Glikson’s Team hide all their data and make an artform out of avoiding FOI’s, surely points A and B are what skeptics claim Glikson et al do. Skeptics can hardly be altering datasets if they can’t even get them.  But C, D and E are conversely what Glikson thinks skeptics do.

No account is taken by the denial syndrome of the infrared absorption/emission resonance effects of over 320 Gigaton carbon (GtC) emitted by humans since 1750,

“No account?” Glikson takes “no account” of the part of our debate where I mention that the direct effect of the infrared absorption is 1.2 degrees as estimated by Hansen, I not only “account” for that, I don’t bother disputing it. I ask instead about the feedbacks which are where the real debate is at. Which part of the debate did I discuss “feedbacks”: just Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V.

Glikson apparently claimed that the hot spot was found by Sherwood — but if he means Allen and Sherwood, he would know (because I pointed it out) that they used wind shear to measure temperature trends (let’s just throw out the radiosonde temperature sensors right?); and if he meant Sherwood 2008, then he’s fallen for the colour change trick — “what’s the new colour of zero: screaming red”.

As I’ve pointed out before, 28 million radiosondes are saying: There is no hot spot.

There’s a conspiracy in there somewhere

When such claims are shown to be inconsistent with recorded data and with natural laws, the denial syndrome resorts to claims of a “conspiracy” on the part of climate scientists.

Yes, yes, hollering “conspiracy!” is always the back up of those who can’t find the data to support their claims, that is, except for the ones who yell “conspiracy theorist” instead, which is exactly what Glikson does here. Methinks it’s a case of Projection run riot.

Before I saw Bosnich’s review, I was thinking perhaps Glikson had found legitimate faults among words written by obscure, unknown writers, possibly people who wrote letters to newspapers, or who he met once at a bus stop. But that looks overly generous.

Did he really say the poles warmed by 5 degrees and that it was shown by satellites?

Skeptics control global emissions — get in the way of people gifted with The Knowledge Of Planet Saving

Despite its pseudoscientific nature, the climate denial syndrome has succeeded in providing promoters of open ended carbon emission with arguments resulting in a delay of required climate change mitigation by over 20 years.

A twenty year delay? Even 15 years ago the IPCC’s scientific committee still agreed that they had no clear evidence that CO2 was the main culprit: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes”* (This and all other phrases to that effect were infamously removed by Ben Santer and rewritten for the final official 1996 report.)

But according to Glikson if it wasn’t for skeptics the emissions reductions apparently would have been started in 1990. (If only skeptics would stop asking hard questions and just obey the ruling class, all those competitive, disagreeable nations, the despots, the UN junkies, the Russians and Chinese, they would have signed up to …err Rio, in 1992.)

e)      Amateur night?

This is what Western Civilization has come too. The people who use peer reviewed evidence, have the highest scientific credentials, very few conflicts of interest, and reason with impeccable logic, they are called deniers, while those who ignore the evidence, break laws of reason, and can’t arrange a paragraph, they get paid by the government to throw names.

Where do you send plea’s for higher standards of reason at our national taxpayer funded institution of supposedly higher eduction?

The press release suggests:
Roz Smith
Manager
Communications and External Relations
Climate Change Institute
The Australian National University
Canberra, Australia

T: +61 2 6125 6599
W: http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/

*Thanks to Larry Bell and my advance copy of “Climate of Corruption” for that quote.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Glikson: descends to pseudo-psychology and projection?, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/36zgboh

53 comments to Glikson: descends to pseudo-psychology and projection?

  • #
    MadJak

    Conspiracy theory? What like the Conspiracy theory that C02 causes runaway Global warming and that anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the planet, in the pay of big oil and associated with the tobacco companies?

    The only conspiracy theory I see is the one that Glickson and his mates have subscribed to.

    Isn’t it interesting how they have resorted to more of the ad hominems and name calling more now that the temperatures inconveniently refuse to rise.

    Suckers. We should be treating them with the contempt they have earned.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    It is sad.

    The problem, of course, is that Universities all over the western world have established single-issue Climate Science departments.

    Because they are single-issue, they have less in common with their colleagues at their parent University, than they do with colleagues at other universities. It is a very closed club.

    But they know that being focussed, and indeed created, on a single-issue basis, they are highly vulnerable to a withdrawal of funding, especially from corporate sponsors. I suspect that this is precisely what we are witnessing.

    I don’t imagine that being a paleo geologist[1] is terribly high on the priority list for funding in the normal course of events. But, re-brand under the banner of climate change; and suddenly doors are opened to a whole new world of fortune.

    Ah, the power of the word!

    “Words in the right hands equates to money. Whole campaigns of well chosen and well placed words equals riches beyond imagining!” [Charles Saatchi]

    Can we really expect these people to just give up, and quietly walk away? I don’t think so.

    [1] One of my business partners, who is a Geologist, and a Mining Engineer, points out that all rocks are old by definition, so calling oneself a paleo geologist has a certain redundant ring to it.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’m angry at this, but I also can’t stop laughing.
    I want to post a serious comment, but so many funny things are going through my mind at the same time.
    Even professor Bosnich couldn’t help but take the mickey out of this.

    So I think I’ll go with taking the mickey out and leave the serious stuff to errr I dunno, John Brookes maybe.

    To Roz Smith
    Manager
    Communications and External Relations
    Climate Change Institute
    The Australian National University
    Canberra, Australia

    Dear Ms Smith

    Having just read an e-mail from professor Brice Bosnich who attended a lecture you organized at the ANU earlier this month, I am thorougly fascinated and require your help to satisfy my aching fascination.

    May I have a colour photo of your legs please?

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    By the way, the lecture theatre is quite aptly named. Couldn’t I have some fun there armed with a spray can of graffiti paint.

    00

  • #
    janama

    I went searching for those legs Baa but without success. They don’t even have a picture of her.

    http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/section/people/

    The ANU Climate Change Institute works across the University’s seven academic Colleges to build and support a cohesive, interactive community of climate change-related researchers and teachers.

    There’s over 50 people riding this gravy train.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Baa Humbug: # 3

    We could mount a blitz campaign and make her legs famous on YouTube.

    You don’t even need a photograph of said legs. All you need to do is start a meme that asks the question, “Who has seen Roz’s pins” – akin to the “Where’s Wally” craze a few years ago.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Wow 50 people janama? And that’s just at one uni?

    Man we need a strong razor gang to trim all that. (no pun intended re: Rozs legs)

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Another great piece Joanne.

    I wish you’d come over to the UK: there’s a few AGW alarmists and eco-loons that I’d like to see ‘benefit’ from one of your forensic kickings – in person.

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    LOL,
    You have to love it when the Alarmists publicly shoot themselves in the foot.

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    The only technical information for Jo:

    Carborari argue you are not right on hot spots as there are these two works that reputedly prove it:
    http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/santerdouglass.pdf
    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

    In addition, Cook updated his (Un)Skeptical guide.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Glikson knows the main Skeptic arguments, so why did he ignore them?

    In the Great Debate of May 2010, Andrew Glikson and I exchanged replies in a five part series that took six weeks and amounted to over 17,000 words, 26 graphs, and dozens of references. It’s the only long serious climate debate in writing that I’m aware of.

    Jo, I am aware of one other, a debate between Dr. Eric Grimsrud and Dr. Ed Berry both live in Flathead County, Montana. Their debate was conducted at Dr Ed’s Climate Clash site in 11 parts.

    1. A Common Sense View of AGW. http://climateclash.com/2010/09/26/a-common-sense-view-of-agw/

    2. The Scientific Method. http://climateclash.com/2010/10/18/2-the-scientific-method/

    3. Are we at an Impasse?. http://climateclash.com/2010/10/20/are-we-at-an-impasse/

    4. Prosecuting in strict accordance with the Scientific Method. http://climateclash.com/2010/10/21/4-prosecuting-in-strict-accordance-with-the-scientific-method/

    The remaining parts can all be found @ climate clash. Just look under categories at the right hand side of the page, Dr Ed (5) Dr Eric (6).

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Adolf Balik:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 7:11 am

    The only technical information for Jo:

    Adolf the 2 papers you link to are not new, Jo is familiar with both of them.

    The first one, Santer et al is a statistical trickery whereby Santer et al essentially took existing data, stretched the uncertainty bars as wide as a barn door and concluded “voila’ our figures are within the models expected ranges”
    If that Santer is involved in anything, always hide your wallet (figuratively). I wouldn’t trust that man any more than Bernie Madoff. Santer still has to answer for his disgusting and unconscionable effort of 1996.

    The 2nd link you provide, Trenberth et al, does absolutely nothing new, doesn’t assess new data. It is a glossy publication that essentially makes some recommendations as to HOW we may resolve the unresolved missing hot spot.

    Note the very different presentations of the 2 papers Adolf. The 2nd paper is a glossy “junk food” dressed up to look pretty whilst asking for yet more grant money for new research (i.e. an admission that they don’t know) and the 1st is dull and grey, full of long winded equations, difficult to decipher charts and graphs, boringly set out to hide the fact that they essentially CHEAT to get the result they desire. EVEN THEN they still don’t get the 2x tropospheric heating that their models claim they should.

    Both the papers are a disgrace and the long list of authors are the whos who of CAGW alarmist central.

    Sue me Santer

    00

  • #
    Taras

    Adolf Balik at 7:11 am

    How do you measure something, that does not exist?

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug

    The first one, Santer et al is a statistical trickery whereby Santer et al essentially took existing data, stretched the uncertainty bars as wide as a barn door and concluded “voila’ our figures are within the models expected ranges”

    Forget the width of the barn door baa, I think its more like widening the goal post on a footy field so they reach from one corner post to the other.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Expect many more events like the one where Glikson made his silly speach.

    The third-rate academics riding on the AGW gravy train are getting desperate. None of them could hold down a job for a year in the real world so they are frightened as they see the gravy train slowing to a halt. They need the political support which fuels the gravy train with funds. But the failed conferences in Copenhagen last year and Cancun this year showed that the fuel of political support is rapidly decreasing.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    [...] favourite Will Steffen, who has been in good form recently, mudslinging, spouting propaganda and smearing deniers. But why wouldn't he? The entire careers of climate scientists the world over, including Steffen, [...]

    00

  • #
    Jeremy

    Hey! I do beers, barbecue and twilight fire with scientists. That’s normal behavior for me and my friends! Don’t hate on us!

    Mind you, the arguments we present at these good times are not really our best ones, but some good ideas do come out of them. :)

    [Not at all Jeremy! My point was that Glikson, funded and aided with taxpayer support and the resources of the ANU is taking on part timers and social skeptics while he avoids the arguments made by the full timers and doesn't even acknowledge the scientific giants who disagree with him. To his credit he's one of the few who was willing to debate where almost none of the others will, but I suspect it was more because he had no idea of the strength of the skeptical case, and the weaknesses of the climate modelers he trusts. --JN]

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Looks like Dame Edna – the original Housewife Superstar may have some serious competition.

    GO HARD JO & don’t spare the gladiolis!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I just love the way that the AGW types feel compelled to have counter-skeptic presentations whenever a skeptic has the audacity to speak at a university… so it was when Anthony Watts presented at UWA for instance.

    I muse about the word university… uni as in “one” and verse as in song… so they are all singing from the same songsheet? Makes sense to me…

    00

  • #

    Did anyone see Professor Neville Nicholls letter to the editor in The Australian on 21/12/2010?

    He berates Riva et al for deriving sea level rise numbers from measured continental ice melt and modeling instead of direct measurement.

    Pretty good when the whole “CO2 is bad” argument is based on nothing but modeling of theoretical considerations. I’ve written to the editor pointing this out.

    00

  • #

    Sorry that should read he berates Michael Asten for quoting Riva et al.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    This humour does my weak heart no good at all – Unfortunately I have not died laughing, yet :-) .

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Mike @ 20.

    The Australian has been having a determined critique of the current government and it’s, too numerous to count, failures. I also note that the climate counter consensus has been given some column inches, more in fact than the consensus itself. I guess even the ABC is finding it difficult to ignore the UK snow drifts.

    Further to the demand by the AGWers that we have green energy, I am reading Robert Bryce’s “Power Hungry”. He does a devastatingly good job of illuminating the fallacies behind green energy. His Ch 13 looks at the fortuitous ownership by China of most of the world’s lanthanides; critical in the manufacture of magnets and batteries for the new wind turbines and electric cars. In fact the Chinese are virtually the only ones who will be able to supply these components to the green economy. Is it any wonder they are encouraging the West to go green?

    A question for anybody. Why do we need a price on carbon to remain competitive? I would have thought any price would make us less competitive. And competitive with whom??? Certainly not China.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fred Chukkawakka and carlees. carlees said: Glikson: decends to pseudo-psychology and projection? « JoNova: Who needs peer review when you have pop psycholo… http://bit.ly/ecCx30 [...]

    00

  • #
    Mad Hatter

    Firstly thank you Joanne and contributors for this highly educational and more than occasionally amusing blog.

    Apologies for this being OT.

    I put this in light of a recent discussion with my eldest daughter who is currently being subjected to Al Gores film under the guise of ‘headucation’ at school. I gave her a copy of ‘The Skeptics Handbook’ to pass around among her friends but being my daughter she marched up and plonked it on the teacher’s desk instead, stating “This may assist for when you give the other side of the argument”!!

    The ensuing hissy fit by the teacher(s) eventually saw a copy of a glossy booklet entitled ‘The Science of Climate Change questions and answers’ by no less an auspicious body than the Australian Science Academy handed to her with instructions that this was for her parents to read. (Note – almost as bad as the aforementioned film)

    I was wondering if anyone with the correct skill set has seriously considered taking our government to task for what, to me anyway, appears to be blatant propaganda regarding the climate change issue as displayed on their official climate change website found at [ http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ ].

    More specifically the section they refer to as ‘debunking the myths’. If what they put up is factually incorrect or as seems the case more often than not, intellectually dishonest, can they be legally forced to remove it or can they just hide behind the ‘catch-all’ this is what we believe to be true (IPCC) at this point in time?

    In which case a publicly displayed running summary of how far behind the eight ball they are scientifically could prove informative. Maybe even a wall of shame indicating politicians etc. who have been advised but not acted accordingly. Food for thought.

    Seasons greetings and best wishes everyone.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the NSW Labor Government is running and ducking for cover knowing full well they are going to get absolutely pounded at the next election. Rather than allow an inquiry into the generator sell off they have prematurely closed parliament:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/keneally-avoiding-electricity-inquiry-says-nsw-opposition/story-fn59niix-1225975023182

    They’re a bloody disgrace. I am not sure the opposition is any better, but it hard to imagine they could be much worse.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Lawrie: # 23

    In fact the Chinese are virtually the only ones who will be able to supply these components [lanthanides] to the green economy.

    That is not quite correct, there are large deposits in Peru as well.

    Given the terrain, it may well be cheaper to extract them in China than in the Andes, but China certainly does not have a monopoly.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    @ Lawrie (23)

    The idea that imposing a price on carbon will make our economy (any economy) more competitive is absurd, yet Mme Guillotine and her cabinet keep repeating it — they can’t believe it though, it’s just another example of the new paradigm, the cynical abuse of language and retreat from reason which is their stock-in-trade.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Re: Amateur Night

    It does indeed sound like a bunch of amateurs.

    At this stage he stopped me because he said he could not remember “all those questions”.

    Did he start the speech with “Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, …”??

    The few times that I’ve spoken in public I was prepared for questions by having pencil and paper poised to note key words of questions. I paraphrased the question (“cut to the chase”) before proceding to answer so that all in attendance could also hear the question, as I understood it, before the answer.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mad Hatter: # 25

    The site you refer to is managed by the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

    There are a number of things that are notable about this.

    Firstly, under the Westminster style of government, there is usually a difference between Ministries (who develop policy and draft law – they are information based), and Departments (who deliver Government services – they are process based). I don’t know for sure if this is the case in Australia, but it certainly is in Britain and NZ. This implies that the Department is there to deliver (or manage the processes of) Climate Change. Freudian slip anybody?

    Secondly, the site presents a static position. There is no sense of developing research and new knowledge being acquired. It gives the impression that the whole thing is done and dusted. There is no verifiable evidence presented, only statements and conjecture.

    Thirdly, there are techniques for assessing the “PR” quotient of any piece of prose. PR folks tend to use similar sentence structures, and the same types of phrases, and the same class of emotive words, all of which are known to have worked in the past, in implanting ideas in the readers mind. We have not looked at this site for a while now, but it does not appear to have changed much (see my second point), and when we looked at it before it scored highly (zero being good) in the tests that we ran.

    So I would say that the site is predominantly propaganda, but professionally done.

    Now, we need to remember that to be successful, all propaganda must contain some elements of the truth, but wrapped up in such a way that the reader comes to their own incorrect conclusions, and thus buys into the proposition.

    But because it does contain some elements of the truth, it would be very hard (and you would need very deep pockets) to prove in a court of law that the Government, through the Department, had intentionally set out to deceive the public.

    But in the court of public opinion, where people are not as stupid as they are made out to be, your average person on the street will look at the weather, look at blogs like this one, talk to their mates down the pub, and come to another conclusion that is totally at odds with what the Departmental site says.

    In that comparison, guess who wins.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Bulldust:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    I just love the way that the AGW types feel compelled to have counter-skeptic presentations whenever a skeptic has the audacity to speak at a university… so it was when Anthony Watts presented at UWA for instance.

    I muse about the word university… uni as in “one” and verse as in song… so they are all singing from the same songsheet? Makes sense to me…

    Uni – Verse – Ity………. Bulldust, ya forgot th’, Ity bit… As in “itty bitty” pea brains. So the pea brains are all singing from the same songsheet….. There. Fixed. :-)

    00

  • #
    UK Sceptic

    Perhaps someone should point out to Glickson that doctorates torn off a roll of Andrex are only useful for one thing…

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Desperate measures call for desperate times. It definitely indicates that we the man-made global warming sceptics are slowly but surely winning the battle if not the war.

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Swap times and measures around for it to read ‘Desperate times call for desperate measures. It definitely indicates that the man-made global warming skeptics are slowly but surely winning the battle if not the war.’

    00

  • #
    janama

    so is Dr Andrew Glikson going to reply to this??

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Was the IPCC’s 1996 report written by Santer? I think there’s been a typographical error.
    Read: Santa.

    00

  • #
    Terry

    @ John Smith #34

    No, I prefer “Desperate measures call for desperate times”. Nicely put, even by accident.

    Our “friends” already have the remedy to a non-existent problem.

    Such a pity mother nature inconveniently refuses to support their global totalitarian crusade. What a denier she is.

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    The main cause of my anger with this claptrap is the massive divesion of taxpayer funding away from very real problems. The 10′s of billions of dollars wasted on this annually could easily have constructed a dual lane all weather highway around the whole continent. Instead, those of us who live in regional Australia, have to put up with crappy roads that fall to bits at the first sign of a bit of rain. I am sure all of us could highlight other areas where all of the money could have been put to good us. Time for the revolution.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    It is called “Job Security”.
    These guys will NOT even look at anything that may show they are incorrect as it would effect the thousands of “Peer-Reviewed” papers.
    The very sad truth is that these guys are teaching this garbage to young minds as facts!

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Dear Ms Smith

    Having just read an e-mail from professor Brice Bosnich who attended a lecture you organized at the ANU earlier this month, I am thorougly fascinated and require your help to satisfy my aching fascination.

    May I have a colour photo of your legs please?

    I think this just comes across as sexist and rude, which will be just dismissed as immaturity. I’m well aware that people such as Ms Smith generally deliver appearance over and above substance, and I’m just as frustrated as the rest of you that it is so easy to fool many of the people for most of the time… however, it is at least conceivably possible that an attractive woman may be trading on her intelligence rather than her looks. For management purposes she only needs to be a keen judge of loyalty, and I’m willing to guess she didn’t get that far without plausibly astute instincts. The days when managers were promoted out of the group who actually know how to do a job are very long gone.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    I do a great deal of research figuring out the hows and whys of what our planet is doing. It is a highly complicated process with many energies and variables.
    For instance: How could the sun be the cause of an Ice Age? The only way would be if the planet was drifting and settled near a pole of the sun for a period of time as the greatest amount of energy given off the sun is at the equator of the sun. So if this is NOT the case then it HAS to be the planet causing an Ice Age.
    The only possibility to having one generate is at an exact time period every time is that the growth on this planet is in cycles of florishing and freezing generating pressure to change the salt on the surface of the oceans and reflecting back more sunlight than what was absorbing.

    00

  • #

    “must be tough being beaten by a housewife”. No offence intended Jo, but the phrase bulldog wearing lipstick did spring to mind …

    Pointman

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Tel: #40
    December 22nd, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Aww lighten up Tel

    Professor Bosnich referred to the “leggy blonde” on numerous occasions in his email. Considering his comedic approach to Gliksons speech and the comedic responses of Glikson during his debate with Jo I took it upon myself to post something comedic as opposed to something serious.

    “I’m angry at this, but I also can’t stop laughing.
    I want to post a serious comment, but so many funny things are going through my mind at the same time.
    Even professor Bosnich couldn’t help but take the mickey out of this.

    So I think I’ll go with taking the mickey out and leave the serious stuff to errr I dunno, John Brookes maybe.”

    The fact that I’ve been a regular here at Jos blog (a female intellectual did you notice?) renders your chastisement of me frivilous.

    I respect the fact that you see my post as sexist and rude, but a lecture is not necessary.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I wonder what the likes of Dr Andrew Glikson would have to say about the following article “Dawn of an Ice Age”

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/218537/Dawn-of-a-new-ice-age

    As climatologist Gavin Cooke says:

    “The so-called Little Ice Age, which lasted about 70 years and was the coldest period in 1,500 years, was significant because it enabled astronomers to discover an unexpected connection between Earth’s climate and the action of the sun. “We get all our energy from the sun and it dictates our climate but the role of the sun is traditionally overlooked by meteorologists. The scary thing is that sunspot activity has a direct correlation to climate. When the sun is producing a lot of sunspots [cooler patches] – normally in a year there are 30,000 to 40,000 of these – the temperature on Earth is traditionally warmer.”

    “In 1645 there were no sunspots whatsoever, five years or so later the Little Ice Age began and lasted for seven decades.

    “The scary thing is that NASA scientists discovered there were no sunspots in 2008,” says Cooke. “Now, as predicted, Northern Europe is once again entering a period of exceptionally cold winters.”

    00

  • #
    David Burgess

    Re: CameronH
    My hobby horse. Unfortunately, science loses funding and worthwile environmental projects lose funding as a result of the current AGW scam. Also (sadly), both science and environmetalists are losing all credibility because of the non-science practiced by those who provide unquestioning support of AGW cause.

    00

  • #

    @David Burgess December 23rd, 2010 at 12:18 am

    “The world is in an economic recession and spending cuts are being made everywhere. Any perception of scientific fraud more than lays the ground for some publically acceptable cutbacks in that area.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/the-msm-and-climate-alarmism/

    Pointman

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman’s recent paper conclusively rebuts both the egregious Santer and the tropical hot spot [THS]; see;

    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    David Burgess@45. It is not just funding for scientific and environmental projects that will suffer, The whole government structure and regulations have expanded almost exponentially in the last decade. Peter Beatie revised the Queensland constitution, without the appropriate referendum taking place, in 2001 to be able to include all assets in the state, including private property, as assets of the government. This has allowed the Queensland Government to “corporatise” the government and borrow against all of these assets. Since then the Government has spent and committed all of the windfall funding from the GST, increased all Government taxes instead of rationalising then as per the GST agreement with the Commonwealth Government, spent and committed all of these extra taxes, borrowed money in massive amounts and spent all of this, and increased the public service by about 50%. The latest plan is to sell off all of the assets belonging to the people of Queensland and,I assume, spend all of this. This revision of the constitution also allows the Government to take citizens private property whenever they like or apply any type to regulation, such as vegitation management legislation, without any appropriate compensation. I also believe that other state governments are also moving in this direction. I said, time for some type of revolution.

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    They’re a bloody disgrace. I am not sure the opposition is any better, but it hard to imagine they could be much worse.

    @ Bulldust: I don’t want to dash your hopes, but many of us in Blighty thought the same thing! So far the new coalition have done nothing to reverse the previous administrations crazy CO2 reduction scheme, and most of their pre-election promises have been broken, one by one.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “CameronH” (48), Here are some articles relative to the Queensland Government Constitution……

    The Brigalow Document……

    http://sosnews.org/newsfront/documents/brigalow.htm

    “Royal Prerogative Writs Served in High Court” (BRIGALOW CORPORATION)….

    http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/politics/item/534-re-%E2%80%9Croyal-prerogative-writs-served-in-high-court%E2%80%9D?tmpl=component&print=1

    THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND YET THE SHEEPLE ARE OBLIVIOUS TO IT!!

    00

  • #
    rob evans

    The Hedley Bull event reminds me of the old saw of the derivation of the word “expert”, as in Expert “Opinion”.

    The prefix “ex-” means “out of”. A “spert” (sic) is “a drip under pressure”.

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    It is incredibly amusing and highly ironic that “Mother Nature” has decided to weigh in on this debate.
    She is not even slightly interested in following any computer model or computer prediction. Here is Global Warming at it’s finest on the 27th December
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/27/3102097.htm?section=justin

    I bet they’re all fervently praying that all this rain and flooding and cold would just go away!
    There isn’t actually anything wrong with them trying to solve the climate puzzle.
    There is something very, very wrong with them pretending they have the answers when they so obviously don’t.
    It is also very, very wrong to access large buckets of public money to preach “doomsday prophecies”.
    We all want the answers to predicting climate but we will never get there if our scientists are not humble enough to admit they haven’t nailed it yet.
    They may have recognised some patterns and some symptoms but they certainly haven’t recognised the causes otherwise their “predictions” would be accurate or at least better than 50/50!
    Some humility and some honesty would be a good start.

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Mad Hatter @ 25:

    If what they put up is factually incorrect or as seems the case more often than not, intellectually dishonest, can they be legally forced to remove it or can they just hide behind the ‘catch-all’ this is what we believe to be true (IPCC) at this point in time?

    Not sure if you’re aware of it, but Gore’s 35 mistruths in his Inconvenient Movie were taken to court in the UK:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

    From the article:

    “The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.”

    Eventually, this decision allowed ruling to view film of opposing points beside every Inconvenient Movie shown in schools.

    Hope this helps. The sooner we bury Gore’s DVD and rely on empirical evidence the better. Jo – Can you help pass on this advice to Mad Hatter if possible please?

    00