JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Bob Carter wins the cartoon war :-) A very sweet win.

Thank you DeSmog! Without FakeGate we would not have had this cartoon. (Readership est 850,000)

Cartoon by John Spooner. The Age.

Source:The Age                 John Spooner: The Age Gallery     Spooner:  Nat.Lbrary collection

Spooner: The National Times Collection :-)

TRANSCRIPT:

Julia Gillard to Tim Flannery (top picture)
“Tim, sorry to drag you in like this. I’m not that upset that you were so wrong about water shortages now that we’re drowing in the stuff. And how were you to know that there would be no statistically significant increase in warming for the last 15 years of increasing CO2 emissions.”

Julia Gillard to Tim Flannery: (lower image)
“No! I want to know why I pay you 10 times what Bob Carter gets and he still wins the argument!”

 

On Wednesday I mentioned the Carter/Flannery disparity in wages:

And if Bob Carter receives an honorarium type amount of $1500 a month, the pull of those big dollars must be powerfully tempting for people like Tim Flannery who struggle along on about $1200 each day he works.

On Saturday :D after he scores flack in other articles, satire restores the balance in favour of Bob Carter. (Now was that in The SMH too?)

Message to DeSmog and that faker… whatever credibility you had…

A comment from Bulldust after my last post on this:
Jo, I am almost ashamed of you … you know full well Flannery has far more sources of income than that pitiful $1,200 a day … heck that would barely keep him in champagne and caviar. … February 16, 2012 at 6:56 am

(Bulldust, forgive me! I have at least blogged about the Panasonic-Flannery connection: Cheap Influence in National Politics: How Panasonic buy time on our public broadcaster. But thanks for those links.)

Hat tip to Marc Hendrickx

 

Other posts on Tim Flannery

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (112 votes cast)
Bob Carter wins the cartoon war :-) A very sweet win., 9.1 out of 10 based on 112 ratings

Tiny Url for this post:

194 comments to Bob Carter wins the cartoon war :-) A very sweet win.

  • #
    John Brookes

    Yes, but its a lot easier to spout rubbish than to actually think about stuff! (and I should know ;-) )


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Brett_McS

      Congratulations on the slowly dawning self-awareness.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Spoken just like a post modern academic, John


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rolf

      First time you are spot on. It takes a lot more brain and courage to actually understand, work and support the scientific way. Garbage like the hockey stick and other pal review studies you can spread around easy especially when supported by the government money machine. Sorry but I have never saw evidence you actually understand anything on the subject.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      John, I would tell you [snip] ED

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        [snip refers to snip...]

        As Brett McS comments, he might be getting it – slowly. But there is so hope; in the words of Socrates, the dawn of wisdom is the understanding of our own ignorance…


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Otter

      You should know, but you haven’t quite got there yet.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Yes, but its a lot easier to spout rubbish than to actually think about stuff! (and I should know)

      You speak the truth there for sure. It is easier to coast downhill than it is to struggle uphill. To be able to think about “stuff” you actually have to want to expend the effort. Those who do so can arrive at conclusions based on observation. They can change their positions if new data dictates. And sometimes they don’t reach exactly the same conclusion from the same data. I see dozens of thinkers here who have differing opinions about some of the most basic things involved in — for want of a better term — climate science. Yet none of them sees any danger from increasing CO2. I wonder why.

      From you on the other hand, we always get the party line — as we get from nearly everyone on the CAGW side of the fence. There’s no sign of individual analysis that leads to the CAGW conclusion. None! Every bit of work done on the subject always comes out in support of the desired result as though it was all scripted before hand.

      Then there’s the blatant dishonesty of too many to name names.

      And you seem proud to swallow this hogwash without even a critical glance at it. So yes, you are coasting downhill. And it does you no credit at all. But you just don’t get it, do you?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        When all sing in total harmony, it suggests that only one is singing the lead and the rest are merely following note for note, with “n’er the brain shall meet”!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Congratulations Brooksie! I see you are on step 1 of the 12 step program:

      http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/articles/liberalism.html


      Report this

      00

    • #
      observa

      Yes, but its a lot easier to spout rubbish than to actually think about stuff! (and I should know)

      You’re not a Biotrucker by any chance are you John? They traverse the world spewing out rubbish. Love to ‘Buy the Biotruckers a (fair trade, organic, sustainably grown, locally produced, low fat) cup of coffee.’ via Paypal but I can’t be sure it’s the true believer’s instant coffee type so I’ll have to graciously decline.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MargaretO

      that is because you are the one who spouts rubbish!!!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      JB,

      Without doubt, the most indisputable fact of that cartoon is its truth !!!

      Care to display to us John, the truth to Man Made Global Warming….?

      I am waiting…

      PS.. Collingwood won last night, I`m grumpy.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    You just have to smile.

    Not only at the cartoon, but at the way those people who beat this whole thing up out of all proportion think.

    Surely someone amongst them must have had an inkling that this would come back and bite them on the fundament.

    But no, press on regardless.

    Reminds me a bit of Al Gore, and how, not long after he released his, er, acclaimed movie, people had a serious look along the same lines at what he was doing, versus what he was saying.

    I’m not sure if most of you were aware of this, but, at that time, there was a comparison done, summarised at the following link, and again, I know it’s a Post of my own, but this was just a classic, and if you do take the link, read the comments, and be aware that at our site, we get very few comments, so this was a ‘biggie’ for us, from April of 2009.

    Who Owns These Two Houses?

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Brilliant, simply brilliant.

    As I often say, a word is worth a millipicture.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jiminy

    Spooner is a Victorian (met him years ago).
    That wouldn’t work if he were in Perth would it? (Although I bloody near drowned in an unseasonal burst at Modsim11)
    He’s also slipped in a weasel word. (pointless parenthetic remark provided for symmetry)


    Report this

    00

    • #

      The cartoon works just fine in Perth. We might not be flooded, but we’ve had an unusually wet summer… (contra to Flannery’s prediction). Jo


      Report this

      00

      • #
        jiminy

        You have. I get 94.8 at the airport without including Feb compared to 1999-2000 DJF of 111.
        Compares to a recent mean of 28.5


        Report this

        00

      • #

        But Jo,

        BoM will use “below-average” winter rainfall to say that we’re running out of rain.

        False reasoning.

        ISTM that governments and quangos all have their mits in the pie. Watching a little TV, one gets bombarded with propaganda about “saving” 60 litres of water/day/person because we’re “running out” (no dams built since the population was a third of today’s and catchment management changes so that only a third of the original runoff ends up in dams.); electricity arguing arguing that we should use less electricity (perhaps they’ve not come to grips with the capitalist principle of making stuff that people want to use and will therefore buy).

        Misleading reasoning.

        Just to space out those adverts are the ones flogging PV solar systems pointing to the rising prices of electricity as justification to buy now. Get you snout in the trough before the subsidies run out! Worst of all, many of those “solar guys” actually believe that they’re helping and cannot comprehend that they are a substantial contributor to rising costs.

        Lack of reasoning.

        At the bottom of the food chain; the gullible consumers. The ones who think that they will get “free electricity” by taking other people’s money to put PV on their roof. Some of them argue that they’ll be off-grid, but many haven’t done the maths on the cost of batteries. To others, the $16,000+ (after subsidies) is less than that of a 5kVA diesel generator at $1600.

        Clear avoidance of reason.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          bobl

          Yes and no,
          Domestic Solar does actually pan out in the long haul especially with a little wind as well which helps to keep the storage costs lower. For diesel one would have to factor in fuel and maintenance (effectively replacing the genset every 5 years) as well. I estimate the TCO of the Diesel Genset would be over $174,000 over 20 years not even accounting for the government screwing us over on fuel and energy (aka Carbon Dioxide) taxes – you know; to save the earth (do you feel guilty or ashamed for living yet?).

          So Domestic solar does have value – in protecting yourself against exploitation by your own goverment(s)! Will be a massive own-goal getting people off the grid.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Michelle

        How goes it Jo. Love your work. Here in Kalgoorlie I think it’s gotta be one of the coolest, wettest summers in the thirty years we’ve lived here. Hardly had a dip or the aircon on. Mind you. It’s a lovely change. The place has a fantastic lushness not normally seen here at this time of year. Keep up the great work. :-)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MadJak

        We’ve had many more Flanneries of rain out here in melbourne these last two summers than i have seen before.

        Flanneries are falling from the sky like Government schemes to tax us.

        I do hear the hail the other day is the warmest hail ever experienced though. I hear the snow is warmer too.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sharpshooter

        When Texas had severe drought last summer, just a few hundred miles north they had floods.

        Guess what the Mushroom Media reported!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Otter

      Yo, cricket! Do you also answer to ‘Marcus McSpartacus’? I just came from WUWT and saw a question worded very much like the FAIL you posted in the previous thread http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/update-heartland-documents-stolen-and-key-one-is-fake-no-insider-leak/


      Report this

      00

  • #
    lmwd

    that is in the financial interests of the donors to such a think tank is well outside my experience in 25 years in academic life. (I would be delighted to hear from my colleagues in science faculties if they know of any precedents.)

    Most academics’ employment contracts will specify that part of their job is ”community engagement” – that is, freely providing public comment in their area of expertise

    So writes
    Associate Professor Dirk Baltzly, department of philosophy, Monash University

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/compromising-the-evidence-20120216-1tbnz.html#ixzz1mhbhi1Yb

    Interesting….given I’m about to engage a certain Professor to come and speak to our company. His rate is really quite reasonable, given his standing in his field (absolute coup for us and can’t wait to work with him). BTW, he’s fully employed by the University so not an Emeritus Professor, which is what I understand Bob Carter is (correct me if I’m wrong someone).

    Academia is not that well paid (in comparison with industry) so many academics supplement with a bit of consulting on the side. In business schools in particular, there is a dual advantage of also using consulting work as part of their research process. What is the bet that more than a few are wishing Baltzly would keep his trap shut.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      lmwd

      Perhaps the fact that Bob Carter is getting attacked for his modest earnings should be taken as a sign of his importance in the climate debate. His modest earnings fund his travel and ability to educate the public. If they can attack that (defund him) then perhaps they can neutralise him? Not a chance!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      Interesting that someone from the philosophy department at Monash suddenly becomes an expert on Earth’s climate system. Carter’s academic qualifications and experience at least put him in the scientific ball park of understanding the science.

      Professor Baltzby of course concedes he is no expert by assuming the biased peer review process guarantees the validity of the IPCC hypothesis and the accuracy of the temperature data, before and after its statistical manipulation. Don’t philosophy departments deal in clear thinking these days? Carter at least knows what the argument is about. Baltzby apparently does not.

      (Peer in this case does not mean all climate scientists but those and only those who embrace the IPCC story on what is causing climate change.One doesn’t have to be particularly bright to see that this sort of peer review is by its very nature useless in testing the basic hypothesis, if not corrupted).


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Jaymez

      Baltzy shows his lack of understanding of science when he writes:

      If Professor Carter has solid evidence the near universal consensus among climate scientists is mistaken, then he should first present this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.

      Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/compromising-the-evidence-20120216-1tbnz.html#ixzz1mi46KNbb

      What ‘consensus’ is he talking about?

      People like Baltzy like to refer to a scientific consensus but then never clarify what that is. Is it that an increase in atmospheric CO2 can increase global average temperature? I don’t think Carter would disagree with that.

      Is it that human produced CO2 can and may have increased global average temperature since industrialisation? Again, I don’t think Bob Carter would disagree there.

      Is it that the climate changes? Again, no argument from Carter there.

      Beyond those points I am not aware of a ‘near universal consensus’ among climate scientists.

      Sure there may be a consensus about human caused catastrophic climate change among radical environmentalists and their flocks of well meaning but ill-informed brethren, but that does not constitute the erroneously implied scientific ‘consensus’ that:

      1. Most of the increase in global average temperature since industrialisation is due to humans.

      2. If there are not dramatic reductions in human induced CO2 emissions to about 80% of 2000 (or before) levels, then the world will face catastrophic man made climate change.

      OK, I have seen some computer models which given certain unproven assumptions, predict runaway climate change. But those models have been very poor predictors of the last couple of decades. That is despite the assurances of the massive IPCC team, Al Gore and Co, NASA, CSIRO, the Royal Society, the UK Met, Tim Flannery etc etc. even though we were assured by all of them that global average temperatures would continue to escalate at an increasing rate.

      There is no evidence which proves points 1. or 2. above. But even if Baltzy could rightly claim a scientific consensus about such guesswork, it is ludicrous and unscientific to suggest Carter needs to come up with Peer Reviewed evidence to the contrary.

      How do you prove something which does not exist other than to point out that it has never been observed? Carter and others have done this and also provided evidence that global average temperature fluctuations since industrialisation can be largely explained by cyclical natural climate variation.

      It is not Carter’s fault that Blatzy and his ilk chooses to ignore the 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm.

      If there was a ‘scientific consensus’ that intelligent aliens had visited Earth in the past, how would Carter prove they had not? He could point out that there is no evidence aliens have visited Earth and there has never been a ratifiable observation of aliens on Earth. He could also explain that ‘evidence’ such as crop circles, the dimensions of the pyramids, drawings by Australian Aboriginals etc, can and have been easily explained without the need to believe aliens had visited earth.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Also, to a lesser extent, we read the diabolical news that Professor Bob Carter is on the take to the tune of $1500-odd per month from private donors (but never mind the $1200 per day PM Gillard’s Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery receives cour… [...]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      $1200 per day. That is $438,000 per year. I thought you had to be a bank executive to get that sort of money.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        lmwd

        By my calculations, Carter earns $18,000 per year from this source. Flannery earns $188,0000 per year (for 3 days per week of work) of our hard earned tax payer money to spread the climate alarmist propaganda.

        Having said that, can’t say the Govt is getting value for money as we don’t hear a lot from Flannery lately. Probably because everyone knows he’s a joke! For $188,000 what’s the bet he’s now been asked to lie low? Value for money? I think not!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Joe V.

        Yes, it’s hardly Bob Cartier (if he’ll forgive the expression).

        Assuming Timbo takes just 2 weeks holid a year that’s at least $1200 per day he’s costing.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        John, some very basic maths…….. if you can follow…

        assuming 52 weeks in a year, 3 days = = 156 day.

        Now $188000= 156 = $1205.13 PER DAY.

        DO… YOU… UNDER… STAND ??????

        Now since Flannery seems to be on a permanent force vacation…….. he is getting paid that, for HIDING !!!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Speedy

        You’re right – assuming you’re talking about an HONEST living.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AW

        You can’t even apply simple math to your blog waffle….. Tim flannery works 3 days per week as climate commissioner @ 180k pa. 3($1200)x52weeks= $187,000.

        BTW…. Bank Ex’ earn inexcess of 400k pa and the big 4 pay billions in taxes to pay for government waste.
        Furthermore was it Gillard who increased her pay packed from 280k to around 470k!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sharpshooter

        Still haven’t gotten out of Primary School, huh?

        Your blatant immaturity doesn’t do much for you position/standing.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    jiminy

    I suspect he’s also statistically wrong.
    GISS Temperatures last 15 years (quick analysis with Excel)

    SUMMARY OUTPUT

    Regression Statistics
    Multiple R 0.547531533
    R Square 0.29979078
    Adjusted R Square 0.245928532
    Standard Error 0.083592637
    Observations 15

    ANOVA
    df SS MS F Significance F
    Regression 1 0.038892857 0.038892857 5.565879485 0.034626165
    Residual 13 0.090840476 0.006987729
    Total 14 0.129733333

    Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
    Intercept 14.40904762 0.045420742 317.2349694 1.14541E-26 14.31092207 14.50717317
    X Variable 1 0.011785714 0.004995616 2.359211624 0.034626165 0.000993343 0.022578086

    He would of course be correct if he’d said 10 years although the trend is upward but not statistically significant.
    I used
    ’1997′ 14.39
    ’1998′ 14.56
    ’1999′ 14.32
    ’2000′ 14.33
    ’2001′ 14.48
    ’2002′ 14.56
    ’2003′ 14.55
    ’2004′ 14.48
    ’2005′ 14.62
    ’2006′ 14.53
    ’2007′ 14.57
    ’2008′ 14.44
    ’2009′ 14.57
    ’2010′ 14.63
    ’2011′ 14.52


    Report this

    00

    • #
      jiminy

      Oh crud. I lost all the spacing. Bolded value is probability that the trend is not significant.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        That’s why the ‘skeptics’ choose HadCRUT3 for surface records, (despite their utter disdain for UEA) with its limited polar coverage. Less apparent warming. HadCRUT4 is being released this year, with the addition of more comprehensive (Russian or Danish?) polar data. It’s expected that that will bring the brits more in line with the american records.

        (That is the official temperature data set for the IPCC panel) CTS

        At which point the ‘skeptics’ will say “You keep adding/subtracting temperature stations till you get results you like!” Only our boy Spencer at UAH can be trusted! Never mind that the surface temp records can be approximated by as few as 45 unadjusted rural temp stations.

        Never mind that it’s Spencer who has had to correct for multiple errors pointed out to him by other people, with every error bringing UAH closer to the other records. There’s still a general feeling that satellite decay hasn’t been handled properly.

        (The FEW errors are made public and accounted for unlike GISS secretive “adjustments” that always goes upward) CTS

        The excuses are as predictable as the presumption and vitriol they are delivered with.

        (Then you will excuse Dr. Hansen’s 1200 mile temperature extrapolations in the North polar region?) CTS

        Which brings me to another point that’s well illustrated by today’s post. It’s the culture of accusations, sneer and general unpleasantness that makes it hard for many people to engage with the ‘skeptic’ blogosphere. Being able to express yourself is a positive thing, but unfortunately important social mores disappear for some people when they enter the online world. They feel comfortable saying things they wouldn’t dare say in person.

        (You are still able to comment here despite you being very unpopular while I have been deleted after a single civil comment has been posted in several known warmist blogs.) CTS

        Bring on the pithy responses I suppose. Sad really.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bruce

          GISS’s polar coverage is extrapolated from places as far away as 1200km.

          Translation: Fabricated.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          It’s the culture of accusations, sneer and general unpleasantness that makes it hard for many people to engage with the ‘skeptic’ blogosphere.

          As opposed to skeptic’s simply being deleted at UnRealClimate and “disappeard” at Septic Science.

          Always done in an entirely engaging way with an accepting, pleasant smile, of course.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Markus Fitzhenry

          You have a strange perspective about social mores, young man.

          How much harm has been caused by stupid socialist warmists. Your so isolated in your little world of falsehood, reality doesn’t matter, just as long as your misanthropism gets feed, all is well. Well it’s not pal. Christ, I’d be dead if I had people like you around me in Nam.

          I can assure you young man, face to face, I would be 100% more vicious.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Llew Jones

          Of course the global temperature anomaly is possibly quite irrelevant as a measure of increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

          February 2nd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

          “I’ve been picking up a lot of chatter in the last few days about the ’settled science’ of global warming. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is man made. It in no way “proves” it.

          If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:

          Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

          Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability.

          The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system. ”

          If in fact global temperature increases were attributable only to natural climate variability then it would put rising CO2 concentrations in the caused rather than cause category

          There is an added real possibility and that is that rising global temperature, since the end of the Little Ice Age which ended in the late 1700s, is due primarily to that particular “phenomenon”. As it is not essentially part of internal climate variability we can add that to Spencer’s likely cause.

          That sort of leaves our CO2 emissions out on their lonesome with not much to do at all, except perhaps improve the fecundity of Earth’s biosphere. Which of course would go a long way to help feed our soon to be extra 2 billion fellow earthlings. Just to make sure of that we could construct a lot more highly efficient(so the coal lasts longer)coal fired energy plants in that “great moral cause”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Llew Jones

            Para 1 correction. # 7.1.1.4

            Of course the global temperature anomaly is possibly quite irrelevant as a measure of (the cause of) increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

            Delete (the cause of)

            (Change made to the original) Fly


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          Tristan,

          I am. Sure that the “4″ data will be as adjusted as the “3 ” data? So Fu$@& g what? Bullshit is bullshit, period! If they are willing to “adjust” the data on the “3″ what makes you think they won’t do so on the “4″ data?

          You may wait with your drool bucket hanging beneath your chin but count me out!

          At which point the ‘skeptics’ will say “You keep adding/subtracting temperature stations till you get results you like!”

          Typical straw man from the wizard of Oz! Good luck and I hope you get that brain from the “Wizard of Oz”!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          jiminy

          I used GISS ‘cos I had it on hand. I downloaded HADCRUT3 but didn’t have the time to process it.
          I knew I was gonna get pinged by someone for my choice no matter what choice I made – that’s just part of responding on a political blog.
          But the point really is that 15 years is (banging again on the same old drum) Not A Realistic Time Period Given The Expected Signal To Noise Ratio, The Known Decadal Oscillations. I was going to demonstrate that if the same trend and variance persisted it damn well soon would have become significant. I was surprised the result was so clear cut and Spooner so obviously de-panted.
          More anon. I’m gonna watch Victory pound Roar or vise-versa.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            jiminy

            Ooh
            Three more dislikes. Victory fans?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            DirkH

            jiminy
            February 18, 2012 at 6:12 pm · Reply
            “But the point really is that 15 years is (banging again on the same old drum) Not A Realistic Time Period Given The Expected Signal To Noise Ratio, The Known Decadal Oscillations.”

            Please try to find a dictionary definition of noise. Then compare with the definition of oscillations. You’re throwing around “signal to noise ratio” as if you knew what that means. I see a very arbitrary definition of noise here; the one that fits your own conjecture.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            jiminy

            DirkH #7.1.1.6.2
            I used the term in a slightly undefined way – but one that’s well understood in the area.
            Most of my texts are too old and too far away in any event for me to dive to.
            Here’s a couple of on-liners to help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
            Where noise in the sense I used it is pretty much as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio para 2 of this definition. i.e. any part of the signal not of interest to me for the purposes of analysis.
            I hope this helps.
            My drum banging is really, really conventional stuff, years old, not at all controversial really.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            jiminy

            But DirkH, you could answer the question I started to look at when I discovered that poor old John Spooner had swallowed a crock.
            Independent of the selection of global warming series, how would you compute the length of the sub-selection of a time series of constant trend and variance to submit to regression analysis before you could say that the trend is statistically significant?
            You do understand why this is an issue?
            I also would like you to understand that I understand that I used the term oscillations very loosely. In the weather records there are white and red components, plus both quasi and non-quasi oscillations plus a putative one off change signal.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Tristan is about to tell us exactly how many GISS stations there are in the Arctic circle. Aren’t you Tristan?

          Whilst we’re waiting for Tristan to come good, lets all take a look at how Jimmy “Handcuffs” Hansen operates.

          http://www.real-science.com/cooling-nuuk

          http://www.real-science.com/science

          http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic

          http://www.real-science.com/smoking-gun-giss

          Just one more for good measure (pun)

          http://www.real-science.com/magic-hansens-red-crayon

          I’m guessing Tristan has an explanation for all this and he will tell us as soon as [snip c'mon Baa - Jo], won’t You Tristan?


          Report this

          00

        • #

          It’s the culture of accusations, sneer and general unpleasantness that makes it hard for many people to engage with the ‘skeptic’ blogosphere. Being able to express yourself is a positive thing, but unfortunately important social mores disappear for some people when they enter the online world. They feel comfortable saying things they wouldn’t dare say in person.

          Tristan, what you say is exactly correct, but it’s not just online, it’s everywhere, in the press, in Parliament, and with families at dinner.

          Apart from one blog post once, I have never seen a single person who thinks CO2 is pollution who also denounces the dismissive patronising, denigrating term — denier. I have never seen a warmer-scientist chastise his colleagues or ask them to be polite, to explain the evidence with manners.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Tristan

            Well, I’ve had my fill.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            So long, and thanks for all the fish.

            Mind you, I’m not holding my breath.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Everyone, lets not forget we are discussing the science of a cartoon… satire, remember, satire…

            Tristan, Yes, sneering derogatory remarks make it very hard to have a serious conversation. Would you agree that calling people who disagree ‘deniers’ is a great way to:
            1. Inflame the discussion
            2. Stop the people who do the name-calling from even listening to the other views (who would listen to a denier?)_.
            3. Bring out the worst in both sides

            It makes zero contribution to a discussion of the planetary atmosphere. Right? So would you ask compatriots of yours not to use it? Would you ever speak against it? D


            Report this

            00

        • #
          jiminy

          CTS. The assertion that HADCRUT3 is the official temperature record surprised me. Mostly in the TAR all three common sets are analysed together.
          IPCC, as a matter of policy, does not set policy any more than it does research.
          This from IPCC “Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis”.

          3.2.2.4 Land and Sea Combined Temperature: Global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere and Zonal Means
          Gridded data sets combining land-surface air temperature and SST anomalies have been developed and maintained by three groups: CRU with the UKMO Hadley Centre in the UK (HadCRUT3; Brohan et al., 2006) and NCDC (Smith and Reynolds, 2005) and GISS (Hansen et al., 2001) in the USA. Although the component data sets differ slightly (see Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.3) and the combination methods also differ, trends are similar. Table 3.3 provides comparative estimates of linear trends. Overall warming since 1901 has been a little less in the NCDC and GISS analysis than in the HadCRUT3 analysis. All series indicate that the warmest five years have occurred after 1997, although there is slight disagreement about the ordering. The HadCRUT3 data set shows 1998 as warmest, while 2005 is warmest in NCDC and GISS data. Thus the year 2005, with no El Niño, was about as warm globally as 1998 with its major El Niño effects. The GISS analysis of 2005 interpolated the exceptionally warm conditions in the extreme north of Eurasia and North America over the Arctic Ocean (see Figure 3.5). If the GISS data for 2005 are averaged only south of 75°N, then 2005 is cooler than 1998. In addition, there were relatively cool anomalies in 2005 in HadCRUT3 in parts of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, where sea ice coverage (see Chapter 4) has not declined.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      jiminy

      Oh this is hilarious. 3 dislikes for introducing facts.
      I fell so very mainstream now.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bulldust

      If the trend is not statistically significant it would be poor science to make any reference to the slope of the trend. It is not statistically significant. That means the stats are not giving you a clear answer.

      To mention the slope of the trend even with the disclaimer of no statistical significance is to engage in advocacy, not science.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        jiminy

        Bulldust. I agree with you, except as to its significance (I am saying the global temperature trend over the last 15 years is significant – at p=0.05, and perhaps to the significance of significance. The reason for my last, is that often the significance of a slope may just be saying “you need to collect more data”. To that extend it is not advocacy, but a hint.

        [ooohh games! I like games!] ED


        Report this

        00

        • #
          jiminy

          Hey Ed.
          This is obvious.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          And what about Hansen’s failed prediction that temps would rise out of the noise by the 1990′s?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            jiminy

            I guess this is one of those things that’s obvious to everyone who’s “in”. But what failed prediction?
            A pointer to the prediction and the evidence against it would assist me.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          jiminy

          Had a think and I suspect I may have confused Ed.
          I can easily accept Bulldust’s point about whether to talk about the trend of a line when the trend is not statistically significant. What I meant by significance of significance, I had thought was obvious enough, perhaps it was not.
          Significance is shorthand for the probability that I am prepared to put up with of getting a false positive; that is, it has an implied level in my second sentence. Just because some trend is said to be not statistically significant does not mean that is ought to be treated as zero. It means you should not treat it as not-zero unless you are prepared to play the odds. “Hence significant as a 0.05 LOS”.
          If I said the chance of you being hit by a car on this road right now were not significant you’d be inclined to sue me from your hospital bed if I then confessed that they were 94%. Not significant at the 95% level but not good odds.
          Now I know Bulldust and others understand this very well.
          The point was that Bulldust believes that the 15 year trend is not significant at some unspecified level.
          I mean that the fifteen year trend issignificant at a 0.05 level. He was talking about a different time series. That’s all.

          No games Ed.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      jiminy

      Just for a bit more completeness. Start with the last 20 years of the HADCRUT3 (as anomalies)


      Year HADCRUT3-Anom
      1992 0.058
      1993 0.103
      1994 0.165
      1995 0.275
      1996 0.124
      1997 0.356
      1998 0.517
      1999 0.263
      2000 0.239
      2001 0.399
      2002 0.456
      2003 0.459
      2004 0.431
      2005 0.474
      2006 0.427
      2007 0.402
      2008 0.312
      2009 0.439
      2010 0.499
      2011 0.346

      Then using excel as before the last 15 years show

      Regression Statistics
      Multiple R 0.185105284
      R Square 0.034263966
      Adjusted R Square -0.040023421
      Standard Error 0.084475533
      Observations 15

      ANOVA
      df SS MS F Significance F
      Regression 1 0.003291429 0.003291429 0.461235312 0.508958808
      Residual 13 0.092769505 0.007136116
      Total 14 0.096060933

      Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
      Intercept -6.469590476 10.11697446 -0.639478779 0.533618721 -28.32598496 15.38680401 -28.32598496 15.38680401
      X Variable 1 0.003428571 0.005048379 0.679143071 0.508958808 -0.007477788 0.014334931 -0.007477788 0.014334931


      The trend is not statistically significant.

      Of course the trend for the last 18 years is statistically very significant.

      SUMMARY OUTPUT

      Regression Statistics
      Multiple R 0.551341075
      R Square 0.30397698
      Adjusted R Square 0.260475542
      Standard Error 0.098263164
      Observations 18

      ANOVA
      df SS MS F Significance F
      Regression 1 0.06747122 0.06747122 6.98774545 0.017704669
      Residual 16 0.154490391 0.009655649
      Total 17 0.221961611

      Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
      Intercept -23.26543103 8.93959484 -2.602515153 0.019242245 -42.21652538 -4.31433668 -42.21652538 -4.31433668
      X Variable 1 0.011800826 0.004464202 2.643434404 0.017704669 0.00233714 0.021264511 0.00233714 0.021264511

      The answer to this mystery is given in the following table

      RESIDUAL OUTPUT

      Observation Predicted Y Residuals Standard Residuals
      1 0.265415205 -0.100415205 -1.05335122
      2 0.27721603 -0.00221603 -0.023246063
      3 0.289016856 -0.165016856 -1.73101979
      4 0.300817681 0.055182319 0.578860171
      5 0.312618507 0.204381493 2.143953156
      6 0.324419333 -0.061419333 -0.644286183
      7 0.336220158 -0.097220158 -1.019835319
      8 0.348020984 0.050979016 0.534767708
      9 0.359821809 0.096178191 1.008905123
      10 0.371622635 0.087377365 0.916584837
      11 0.383423461 0.047576539 0.499075872
      12 0.395224286 0.078775714 0.826353882
      13 0.407025112 0.019974888 0.209535726
      14 0.418825937 -0.016825937 -0.176503367
      15 0.430626763 -0.118626763 -1.244389691
      16 0.442427589 -0.003427589 -0.035955258
      17 0.454228414 0.044771586 0.469652028
      18 0.46602924 -0.12002924 -1.259101613

      1998 acts as an outlier with a probability of being drawn from a data set of the same statistics of 0.047
      All this really means is that if you are interested in the trend of the last 15 years in the HADCRUT3 series, for well known and boring reasons you must use a robust regression method or risk getting it wrong.

      This is all very old news. In two years time the odds are that the then 15 year trend will again be statistically significant.

      This bears out my point that the significance of statistical significance is the issue.
      A not-especial meaningful point blown out of all proportion for purely political purposes.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    It would be helpful for outside readers if there was an explanation of who Bob Carter and Tim Flannery are. I think I recognised the Australian prime minister in the cartoon, but what is this all about?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      J.H.

      The Balding bearded guy in the cartoon is Tim Flannery, Gillard’s appointed Climate Change Commissioner…… and the other interesting aspect from that cartoon that may be lost to outside audiences, is that it is shown in the Melbourne AGE newspaper….. Also known as the Spencer Street Soviet or Collins Street Collective….It is an ultra Socialist, Ecofascist paper with a declining and moribund readership. Utterly pro AGW.

      However the AGE is having to attract new investment, Gina Rhinehart is in the process of buying shares at bargain basement prices….. Thus there may be a change in the establishment.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MargaretO

        An absolutely brilliant summary, and let’s not forget that the collective are shaking in their boots at the thought of a possible conservative takeover :)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Our Tim is of course a paleontologist and Prof of env sci who has been appointed Climate Commissioner by our Federal Government. He is paid about US$190,000 to spruik Ms Gillard’s carbon tax 3 days a week. Fairly recently despite claiming sea level would rise by 8 storeys he bought a house right on the water. He has other predictions which are similarly lurid.

      You can see a bit about Bob Carter here.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ross James

    Great! Ad Homs are back with vengeance.

    No science here. Wasted words and wasted years hey Jo battling a phantom conspiracy.

    —-
    REPLY: Wa-hay Ross. Did you finally find THAT paper? – Jo


    Report this

    01

    • #
      MargaretO

      what are you talking about? Your whole post is total nonsense.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      The lack of science and waisted words comes from you, Ross! Why don’t you use google to find a course on grammar and syntax?

      Do you get a kick back from aspirin manufacturers? God knows, I often get a headache trying to decipher your mind numbing drivel. You can’t even cut and paste well!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mydogsgotnonose

    We are seeing in real time the thrashings/death throes of this new Lysenkoism. IPCC ‘climate science’ is failing on all fronts. The proof is here: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png

    This cooling is because the Arctic, having used up the accumulated iron in old ice, is freezing and associated regional warming is reversing. Since 1997, climate science has had to calibrate CO2 climate sensitivity against post industrial warming [they still falsely claim most post ice age warming was CO2-GW], so CO2-AGW is now looking very low indeed.

    Just when your Gizzard and Rudd will admit that the IPCC case is totally broken is when they lose power. However, Obama will dump it if re-elected because the US is getting another big snow event this weekend and the people are sick and tired of being told climate lies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    The Guardian writes:

    As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

    Ross J.

    I think its about time some reasonableness returned to this debate and think tanks stop presenting policy as science fact.

    ———————-

    Ross – couldn’t agree more. Those thinktanks called UEA, NASA, GISS CSIRO, they need to stop presenting policy as science fact. – Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      At least the HI doesn’t take taxpayer’smoney!

      Hansen the Astronemer has made over a million on this scam. NASA, GISS and the rest of their ilk on the taxpayer’s teet screw Joe Sixpack without a kiss first or the courtesy of a reach around!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Brendon

      “The Guardian” is akin to “The Age” in Australia.
      It is nothing but a LEFTIST RAG bereft of any intelligent discourse.

      That you have the gall to actually quote from such a source speaks volumes about you “Ross James”.

      Do you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sharpshooter

      Stolen? From a publicly funded site. From a “scientific” site that is engaged in public research (unlike secretive military work).

      Before opening mouth and (Snipped), try to remember what the statist Guardian had to say about WikiLeaks that will probably result in thousands being murdered.

      But slime like you don’t give a ratsass as long as your psychosis gets buffed.

      You’re a disgusting POS and an overgrown punk.

      (Snipped the inappropriate words out and please back off on getting personal) CTS


      Report this

      00

  • #
    fenbeagleblog

    As the cartoon wars continue, the Green Treens consolidate their hold on Britain. Who will save them, and the western world?……

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-green-treens/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Now if you fast forward to southern Spain, you will find a very nasty drought situation.

    All over southern Spain, almost every town and village has its own recently constructed solar panel farm, usually with a rated electricity generating capacity of between 2 and 8MW.

    Clearly, the introduction of all these solar panels have caused the drought – or am I using typical CAGW follower logic?

    Seriously though, these green energy projects with their huge unjustifiable subsidies, are a large part of the reason for the economic mess this part of the world finds itself in. Just like the situation which Australia will shortly enjoy with its carbon taxes.

    Bottom line, whenever politicians embrace a trendy environmental cause, you are guaranteed large scale economic distortions and always the little people – that’s us – have to pay for their arrogant ineptitude.

    And in Asia, they just laugh at the West’s stupidity at deliberately undermining their own economic well-being.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Clearly, the introduction of all these solar panels have caused the drought – or am I using typical CAGW follower logic?

      I was wondering how soon someone would suggest this. It is reasonable to consider that extracting all that solar energy might have an impact on weather. Same for wind power.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Juliar

    Flannery also receives quite a bit of money from some of the wind and geo-thermal projects he invests in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    Ooh, sorry to go off topic guys but I think this may interest Jo and all of the posters. Maybe even worth it’ own blog.

    http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/meteorologist-offers-different-take-on-climate-change/2455509.aspx


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Otter

      Good article, Jul! I see in the comments that the hystericysts are still spreading the Heartland LIE. I hope this gentleman has a long a prosperous career as a Skeptic.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    You are assumming that Bob Carter actually wins the argument. That is more ego than the reality shown by climate science.

    The obsession with people such as Tim Flannery indicates that its your ego collective that hates not being on top and in charge. Your ego’s aim at Tim Flannery means you are missing the thousands of thinking people who realise denialism is just a farrago of cant and cunning. Which is a good thing.

    [did you just use the "D" word?] ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      In the military, there is a principle handed down from the First World war, that you should not poke your head over the parapet.

      Some soldiers, newly arrived at the front, insisted on poking their heads above the parapet to have a look at the enemy. Once the enemy realised this was happening, they tended to focus their firepower on the ‘useful idiots’ who presented such a fine target. This expended their ammunition aiming at the same ‘useful idiot’. Many bullets were fired, when only one was required to kill.

      Even knowing this, some of the ‘useful idiots’ still could not resist the temptation to make themselves visible. And this was encouraged by their more experienced colleagues because it wasted the enemy’s ammunition.

      Tim Flannery is useful to Juliar Gillard, for similar reasons. He tends to act as a fine target for sceptical attention, and it is probably better for the sceptics to aim at him, rather than at Juliar.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      Unfortunately for you Jeremy the “thousands of thinking people” realize what a trumped up crock of manure the denialism/denialist/denier descriptive is. It is only the unthinking, blind followers of the faith with which it has any meaning.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Robert,

        Go easy on Jeremy C.

        He might not realise it, but he is probably seen by the warmist establishment as a useful idiot, who’s only purpose in life it to draw the sceptics fire. My little story was probably lost on the little darling. He would not have realised that it also applied to him.

        Politicians use people. It is what they do. It is what makes them politicians. Actually, it is their only purpose. Jeremy C is just being used like any other useful idiot.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      lmwd

      Did Jeremy C just try to psycho-analyse sceptics (people who don’t automatically accept climate alarmist dogma)?

      Here’s another perspective for you Jeremy. Perhaps the people who uncritically jumped on the climate alarmist bandwagon (do research bandwagonism) are struggling with the realisation that they have been part of a mass hysterical psycho-social movement not unlike the witch hunts in the 1690’s. Who would have thought that in this day and age whole populations could be so easily tapped into and emotionally propelled to move en masse? Still, after 15 or more years of being bombarded with propaganda….it is understandable.

      There are always going to be those who feel more comfortable moving with the herd Jeremy, and those who stand back and question critically, anything….

      As Lindzen states in his wonderful essay, ‘Resisting Climate Hysteria

      And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

      In fact, I would suggest you read his whole essay!

      http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

      It must be hard for some people who’ve gone out on a limb and publicly stated their absolute and unquestioning ‘belief’ to realise they have been manipulated and misled. But the scientists, I hear you say……? If you’re not aware of Milgrims’ studies in obedience to authority, you might like to research that. Put someone in a white coat and for some reason humans lose their normal critical faculties, making the assumption that by virtue of their position no scientist would lie, or cheat, or doctor (massage/smooth or whatever term you want to use to justify “hide the decline”) their data for financial and reputational gain, would they?

      If you are a scientist whose whole reputation/career (academic celebrity), if not the survival of your academic dept, rests on one idea (that is that Co2 will cause warming beyond what we have seen historically and natural variation), and other scientists question this idea, then a natural response is to attack them personally and resort to tactics that would make the mafia proud. We are talking about academic bullying and standover tactics with journal editors or even attacking the modest income of a retired scientist…. There would be a need to shut down critical voices and the research of other scientists that challenges their work. All this effort so they can keep repeating the mantra, there is “consensus” (see ClimateGate emails tranche 1 and 2 for evidence of this).

      So why has climate alarmism been whipped up? For financial and ideological reasons; a convergence of vested interests, as base as those reasons are. Scientists learned early on that the more alarmist their projections (using computer models), the more research funds they got from Govt. In fact the best way of ensuring your pet research project can get any funding is to link it somehow, any way you can, with man-made climate change (see the recent story of Macquarie Island where in 1996 some Dr said that the Hopper Penguin population was at risk due to Climate Change, which turns out was an erroneous causal link. After a large scale pest eradication program, the Penguin numbers are thriving in record numbers!!!). There are many more examples that can be given.

      At some stage Govt realised that this scare was an opportunity to more heavily tax the population (to support big and growing Govt) and the people would acquiesce because they naively thought they were saving the planet (as humans, do we have a need to think that individually we are more significant than we are? That somehow we are really superheros tasked with saving the world???….) Analyse that!

      The media used climate scaremongering to sell papers, because a diet of just sex and scandal (the other big ‘S’ sellers of papers) gets a bit tedious. Let us not forget the potential size of a carbon trading industry (it has Goldman Sach’s salivating at the prospect of billions) and then there are the billions in subsidies for a protected renewable energy industry.

      And then there are the ideological reasons = the Green movement (so much more than conservation) latched onto this as a means of controlling society through energy. It is a ‘we WILL make you over in our image and you WILL live according to OUR rules’ mentality (now, where did all the ex-Communists go when they finally realised Communism was an unsaleable political brand? (see Lee Rhiannon and Christine Milne and their links to Communism).

      Money and control! And it all rests on uncritical and naive acceptance by the population…but times, they are a changing……The population are starting to ask awkward questions of the alarmists, and demanding answers and evidence, not emotive rhetoric.

      All this trumped up climate alarmist hoo ha was over fractions of a degree rise in global temperatures in the 20th Century. Rises that have been seen many times before in the history of our planet when humans could not possibly have been blamed!

      So what is the opposite of scepticism (those who have a questioning attitude)? How about blind acceptance? Here is another word for you, Jeremy. A tendency towards gullibility! I’m sure there is plenty of psych literature on that.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        lmwd

        PS. Jeremy.

        My forebears were German Jews. My Grandfather volunteered early on in WWII because of this and was killed diffusing a landmine in El Alamein when my Mother was about 3.

        I particularly find the use of the D word absolutely obnoxious, abhorrent, detestable, ignorant in the extreme, offensive….you get the message? !!!!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Jeremy C

          Imwd,

          My forebears were polish Jews.

          My father made light of his WWII experiences. It wasn’t till the week after his death I learnt he had been bombed and strafed, he had always claimed he had a quiet war. Whenever I travel to Germany on business I note the care German people take to acknowledge and move on from their past.

          Trying to link what happened then to the cant and cunning used now to deny AGW is distasteful.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Robert

            Unfortunately you didn’t inherit any of his reading skills.

            The message was implying a similarity to what happened then to what people like yourself are trying to do with your AGW meme.

            Don’t try and spin it otherwise, we are blaming you and your kind.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Imwd,

        Well put, and spot on.

        Although I would avoid the use of Ad Hominum references if I were you (whatever you think of Lee Rhiannon and Christine Milne) it detracts from the excellence of your comments by opening you to attack.

        Otherwise excellent.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Jeremy C

      “[did you just use the "D" word?] ED”
      Yes, what otehr word is there to use…….


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening all.

    So it looks like Bob Carter is paid peanuts, but Flannery is the monkey!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Reminds me once again of the best opening line I saw in an article about the GFC (yes, I mentioned this before some time back). It was something along the lines of:

      “They said if we paid peanuts we’d get monkeys, so we paid truffles and we got pigs.”

      Just realised that works on another level if you read it as PIIGS.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Keith

    Spooner also did that cartoon about Rudd ranting at deniers, after denying a series of facts about the climate. I think it was back in 2009, just after Rudd’s Lowy rant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    OK everyone lets just follow this argument through. Say Abbot the destroyer lies his way to the job of prime minister and Hockey puts on leaky boats every honest person and or scientist who who has stood up to denialism. Say moany tony needs a fig leaf for his lies on AGW and asks the usuall suspects in denialism to take a paid role as ‘climate’ commisar’ in his regime. It will be paid at the usuall rates as John Howard pioneered. Will Bob C turn it down? Will he say, “No, I can’t take $150,000″?

    What do you think?

    [I think we've tolerated your use of the words denier and denialism long enough. Cut it out or be cut out. Your choice. Mod Oggi]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Why on earth should Professor Bob Carter agree to work a full-time job advising an Abbott gubmint for only $150,000.00 a year, when JuLIAR has established the going rate for paid gubmint climate shills like Flim Flammery as $300,000.00 per annum?

      I have no idea what Professor Bob Carter would do if he were offered such a position, but IF he were to stoop to taking it, then surely you would not deny him the opportunity to earn at least the same rate as a man who has been consistently wrong every time he opened his mouth about climate?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Joe V.

      The problem is not the amount,$1200 being on the low side of a day rate for consultancy, but that the Prime Minister is paying it at all , for such a useless tool.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      Simply the fact that you use a phrase like “that has stood up to denialism” is sufficient proof that you have nothing to say worth hearing.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Jeremy,

      I suggest you read my comments at 16.1, and 16.2.1.

      Then lets have a serious discussion about what is really going on. (Oh, and without either of us using the ‘D’ word for fear of being excommunicated by the moderator).


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Oi! Keep fig leaves out of this.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Jeremy C

      ‘denialist’ and ‘denialism’ are used across the world by people wrt to those who willfully deny the interlinking science that describes AGW. That those who are described by such terms have not been able to convince the public square they they should not be described as such is not so much a failure by such people but is evidence of the accurate useage of these words in the context of the public (and non scientific) discourse on AGW.

      Banning or sniping will not solve your self generated problem.

      [you are wilfully being offensive Jeremy. We don't care for your conjectures about the use of the word. This is Joanne Novas blog. You're welcome to post comments here SO LONG AS YOU ABIDE BY JOS RULES. Start your own blog and make up your own rules if you wish, but here you abide by Jos rules. No exceptions, no discussion. If you feel a rule change may improve the blog, drop Jo a line by emailing her supportATjoannenovaDOTcom.
      You may be happy with people coming to your place and behaving in whatever way they wish, however offensive, WE ARE NOT. Now get that through your obtuse skull or be shown the door. Your choice, you are free to make it, but make it before your next comment. DO WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER? mod oggi]


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        No, it is used across the world by the small minded and intellectually vacuous such as yourself. Until you realize you are the problem there is no hope for you.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ghl

        To Mod Oggi
        Jeremy C exists to deface the blog. Consider his effect on the conversation. Large blank, tacky, annoying, information-free gaps in the discussion. If he did not evolve naturally from our education system he would be a logical Fenton invention.
        You know the difference between gratuitous insults and fair argument.
        Please ban him and his ilk.
        Does anyone agree?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening All.

    To quote John Spooner:

    “I want to know why I pay you ten times what Bob Carter gets and he still wins the argument!!”

    Because he’s right, perchance?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tom

      Spooner is his own man and has been a climate sceptic at least since the 2009 zombiefest in Copenhagen. For an independent thinker, it’s not rocket science: a hypothesis that demonstrably doesn’t work supported by an asylum full of money-driven groupthink.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      2dogs

      Flannery’s Climate Commissioner role is to be an advocate, not a researcher. If the side he is on is right, then that makes his failure as an advocate for it even worse.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #

    The stunning thing is that this complete fabrication of Global Warming has had legs for so long. When the internet information is everywhere, although you have to sift through the rubbish to find out what is going on. Google http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/ and have a look at what Hendric Svenmark is doing with CLOUD EXPERIMENT these guys are on the right track. These things are fall into historical correctness and make far more sense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Thanks for the hat tip Jo … it was only a 5 minute search of Flaners’ obvious income. It was certainly not exhaustive by any means. I see we are attracting a lot of new feral CAGW believers for questioning the “great” man with no qualifications in climate science whatsoever. Interesting to see how they let fly with ridiculous ad homs and insults and then complain when they get hostile replies. The double standards of that crowd are painfully obvious.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    As a climate realist, I get the sense that we’ve somehow turned a corner in the last week in the fight against climate alarmism. They’re running around like headless chickens. You can smell their fear. They’re just pinging between the denial and anger stages. Standby for some bargaining in the near future.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Hi Pointy,

      I don’t know about having “turned” a corner so much as straddling the very apex of it.
      Or perhaps “standing on a razor’s edge” would be a better description.

      The things is, this can now go two ways – in fact MUST go one of two ways, for there are no other alternatives. Either:

      1) – The Heartland Institute now initiates legal action against every newspaper, web site, blog and commentator that they can identify and make a case against, then commence actual court proceedings against those most likely to succeed as assessed by their legal counsel, or

      2) – They don’t.

      .
      I believe action 1) will culminate in the destruction of the credibility of, and the end of any meaningful presence on the internet where the real battle has been fought from Day One, of the climastrology cult and its main promoters. It will also deliver a serious blow to the MSM.

      Conversely, action 2) will result in a mass upsurge of organised (rent-a-crowd) support for the climastrology sites and their promoters. This will lead to a belief that they can get away with any low-down dirty trick so long as it supports “The Cause”. That, in turn, will lead to sites like this, your own, and even the “heavy hitters” like WUWT, being subject to a barrage of attacks, including, but by no means limited to, serious mauling in the MSM coupled with major troll infestations. By sheer weight of numbers, it is a battle we will lose.

      Everything now hangs by the thread of what the Heartland Institute does next.

      I find it somewhat poetic and fitting that the organisation now handed the silver-tipped wooden stake to drive through the monster’s chest, should be named “Heartland”.

      Perhaps there’s something to this thing called “destiny” after all.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        That is it in a nutshell. Apparently, from what I have heard from others as I refuse to go there myself, the comments at deSmog are along the lines of “they must be real or they would be suing us.”

        As I mentioned elsewhere, things in real life don’t move as quickly as a 1 hour episode of “Law and Order” or an old Matlock re-run. Who knows what HI is planning and what their legal team is doing. I don’t. But I do know they don’t need to go shouting “take it down or I’ll sue.” HI made their statement and they requested the document be removed. Now it is just a matter of waiting to see who doesn’t remove it, ensuring there is evidence that those parties knew of the request for removal of the document, and sending the lawyers after those who refused to comply.

        Will they? We can only wait and see. I’d hate to be one of those hearing the phrase “You have been served” should option 1 be the chosen path.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Hi Robert,

          Just a small sampling from diefraudbog so you don’t lose your last meal:

          Windy: Its a no brainer. The highly litigeous folks in the Climate Deniers can easily sue for defamation\libel if they are in the clear. Even if they don’t get any money, they’ll devistate us so called ‘warmists’. The fact that they won’t sue means they are lying through their teeth, pure and simple.

          No amount of badgering sources, hand wrangling or anything else will reveal the truth. Take it to the courts and be done with it. If Heartland doesn’t sue we’ll just call it complete and total fact.

          By the way, in Canada, if those documents were fake, it is a clear cut case of defamation, which Heartland would easily win.

          and

          chas_rasper: So why doesn’t Heartland sue? I mean if its so fake… its easily a devistating win if they are in the right.

          There aren’t enough balls between Heartland’s board of directors to sue.

          These are comments from an article published AFTER Heartland had advised the document was a fake. Septic Science has been doing the same thing – posting clearly defamatory articles, and allowing defamatory comments, AFTER being advised of the forgery.

          It is clear these sites and others are positioning themselves as little “Davids” throwing down the gauntlet to the monstrous, evil “Goliath” aka the Heartland Institute. I believe they are doing it in their firm belief that, for one reason another, HI will not proceed. If that turns out to indeed be the case, then the entire skeptic movement is deep doo doo.

          It is interesting to note that, simultaneous to this verbal challenge, a formal complaint has been lodged with the US IRS, challenging HI’s status as a tax-exempt organisation.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Hi MV.

        As you say, the Fakegate thing can go two ways and the indications are that they’ve decided, quite rightly, to go to law. Incidentally, they’re looking for contributions for a war chest, so if you feel like contributing a modest amount (I have already), here’s a link with a donate button.

        http://giving.heartland.org/donate

        Fakegate aside, I meant turning a corner globally. I know things are tragically different in Oz, due to the Carbon Tax madness but pretty much everywhere else, sentiment has moved against them. The worst sign for a fanatical movement like eco-fascism, is to be laughed at, and that’s happening.

        Who would have imagined a cartoon like the above in The Age a few years ago? Sure, they’re not finished yet but they’re half-way into the dustbin of history, hence all their kicking and screaming.

        Pointy


        Report this

        00

  • #
    L Shaw

    Flannery’s salary from the current govt is just the Tip Of The Iceberg.

    If you do your homework on the Australian Research Council (ARC), you will find that local signatories of Trenberth’s letter to WSJ, under support from the ARC, just happen to receive salaries of about $.25M. In addition, they are the beneficiaries of more than $25M, to predict the dangerous consequences of human induced climate change.
    And there are many others who are likewise funded, to support such solid science as to predict how human-induced climate change will impact oysters, crabs, even the mating habits of dolphins.

    How much support do you suppose Carter receives from the ARC?

    Is there any wonder why public exposure has been skewed as it has?

    L Shaw (MSci)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well and good , if what you say is true Pointman: it certainly feels that way. The bleating of the farm foresters in Godzone , as their Government-bestowed carbon credits devalue into worthlessness, lends weight to your view.
    But we are still some considerable distance from having both emissions legislation and carbon taxation repealed in Australasia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic:

    My sons solution to the Australian Labor Party.

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2876555306508&set=a.1143642584773.2021688.1038724916&type=1&theater

    I hope the link works.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Wish it were only a game!

    John Spoonner ONE : Tim Flannery NIL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    As the cartoon so scintillatingly depicts, all the usual suspects have done with their overenthusiastic Heartland gotcha moment( even assuming no fakery whatsoever) is to highlight and publicise the enormous disparity between the slushfunding of Big Climate compared with paucity of private resources of its critics. If they had any nous in that regard they would never, ever go there. What an own goal these overstuffed primadonnas have kicked for us. It’s what comes with the hubris and invincibility of all that public lolly and Groupthink kumbaya over the years. They’ve completely lost the plot.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Great cartoon!
    Thanks!

    I’m now reading Bob Carter’s “Climate: The Counter Consensus” and highly recommend it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Is this a joke?

    Bill Gates says each human on the planet produces on average 5 tons of CO2 per annum and the level has to be got down to zero to stop temperatures rising.

    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/02/17/bill-gates-favors-the-death-panel-and-vaccines-to-decrease-the-worlds-population/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Is this a joke?

      Only if he refuses to lead by example :-)

      Bill Gates ain’t that bright (and yes, I have met him). But he does have the knack of surrounding himself with very bright people (which is why I only met him once). The trouble is that the bright people that surround him are all concerned with technology, and marketing, and finance.

      When it comes to Bill’s other interests, he is as vulnerable to propaganda as any other American.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I’ve never met Bill Gates but I fight every day with the products his company turns out. It’s a love-hate relationship all the way.

        My point: I think Bill Gates is pretty sharp, full of ambition and a business genius beyond anyone else I could name. He actually listened to his customers and then did the right thing by delivering what they wanted to buy when they wanted to buy it. If he had the good sense to surround himself with other very sharp people I’d call that the act of a wise man.

        Unfortunately he also looks like a sharp kid who never quite developed into a complete adult. And along the way he violated contractual agreements and let his business ethics get sloppy. But his success speaks for itself. If you want to be successful, Bill Gates is one good man to study, both for things to do and to avoid.

        You may disagree if you like. I won’t be offended. ;-)

        Also unfortunately, he was no better able to analyze global warming than John Q. Public and therein lies our problem as it always has. He is an authority figure, like it or not. And people notice not only the message but the messenger.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      While this is not related to the cartoon, hence, way off topic, I hope you don’t mind if I add some perspective to what Bill Gates has said at the above link.

      The World’s current population is 6.8 Billion, so at 5 tons per human, that’s an emission of 34 Billion tons, and keep in mind this is just man made CO2 emissions.

      To me, that 34 Billion tons seems to be a little on the low side, but OK, I’ll go along with Mr Gates.

      Of that 34 Billion tons, actual emissions from the generation of electrical power come in at around 14 Billion tons, which in fact is close to the 40% figure from electrical power generation alone that is regularly quoted, and in fact is the truth.

      So, effectively, what Mr Gates is proposing is that the WHOLE WORLD needs to be taken off electricity.

      Currently coal fired power on a worldwide basis generates 85% of the consumed power.

      See now the intent of what Mr Gates has said.

      Let’s just look at the U.S. alone where they have ramped up the power from renewables, the two most currently in vogue being Wind and Solar.

      Over the last four years, they have increased the Nameplate Capacity of renewables (98% of that from Wind alone) by a factor of five. In other words, five times more now than four years ago.

      However, the actual power delivered for Demand (consumption) has only increased from 1.45% to 2.25%.

      See now why the most important figure is not the Nameplate Capacity, but the actual demand.

      Just where does Mr Gates suppose that all that new power is going to come from.

      This looks to me to be a prime example of that old adage.

      ‘Engage feet before opening mouth.’

      Sorry to go off topic, but when I see something like this, I have the desperate desire to explain something that by and large will be accepted verbatim by the vast majority of people. (all of them oddly enough in the First World, already developed)

      This is lunacy on a scale unimaginable.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        The Black Adder

        `This is lunacy on a scale unimaginable`

        Tony, we already have this with the current ALP Government…

        oh… and the abc…. and the age…. and skeptical science…

        and…dirtgirlworld…

        The World is F#$%&d !!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        > Just where does Mr Gates suppose that all that new power is going to come from.

        Billy boy wants to invest in nuclear power to make up the electricity in a “clean” (haha) way, but he may have backed the wrong horse. Look for his TED presentation where he talks about this (skip to 13:20 for the reactor). He’s backing the travelling wave breeder reactor, which (IIRC) means a giant self-contained nuclear battery that is fuelled up once, sealed, and gets buried in your city and is left there indefinitely.
        The safety aspects of TWR seemed a little lacking compared to the LiFTR FBR design in my opinion, but check it out.

        And really, do we want the maker of WindowsME, Vista, and Clippy to get anywhere near nuclear power design?? :D

        Plus I think the alternative crowd have probably misundestood Gates when he says he wants to use vaccines to reduce world population. If vaccines are safely produced, they lead to lowering infant mortality, and therefore women will be less likely to take a shotgun approach to reproduction, so when combined with better hygiene and agriculture will lead to favouring of quality over quantity – just like in the developed world. The thinking on this seems to be that our baby boomers were the last gasp of the Large Families mentality as the affluence temporarily raced ahead of the birth rate reduction trend, although they have been in equilibrium for over 20 years now. There is going to be a glut of unsupportable aged people in any society as they undergo this process, and unless anyone has any better plans, you just have to get through this costly imbalance to get to the other side where the economy is (arrrgh!) sustainable at the new higher quality level.

        The alternative crowd thinks Bill is shooting up Africans full of cancer to kill them off quicker, and this would surely be easy to prove if it were true. Heh.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And really, do we want the maker of WindowsME, Vista, and Clippy to get anywhere near nuclear power design??

          Windows runs a lot of very critical software. Next time you’re in a hospital take a good look at the monitors you’ll see everywhere. But not to worry; no one is going to let Bill Gates design nuclear reactors or the software that runs them.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        John Brookes

        I suspect that Mr Gates sees this as a goal to aim for, not something to do overnight. A bit like replacing horses with cars, it will happen, the only question is when.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    James

    Wow the Alarmists are an angry mob. They could have been handy for the established church during the inquisitions.

    They could shout Contrarian and Denier to their hearts content while beating their chests in rage calling those non believers to be hung drawn and quartered.

    Sound familiar?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MargaretO

    jo, the Heartland Insider is as fake as the Palin Insider that is the invention of the person who writes under the moniker of “And Another Thing”.

    I am hoping that Joe Bast will keep his word and commence those lawsuit proceeding against the BBC and in particular against the New York Slimes, followed by the owner of DeSmogBlog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    I wouldn’t be getting your hopes up about a law suit. It turns out that in law, just like in science, he who pays the piper calls the tune.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    Can I use this space to point out that, since I am broke, I am prepared to publicly support AGW (or just about any other position) for 20% less than Flannery?

    And I’ve got good academic qualifications to back it up: PhD (Philosophy)MA (Applied Linguistics)BA(Hons)(Philosophy) Cert. Ed. (Tertiary Ed.)

    Such a bargain! Any takers?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      To be hired in such a position you need to really pretend that you BELIEVE.
      Read Flannery’s “The weather makers”, and bone up on the language of giddy blind Gaist faith, then maybe you have a chance. Otherwise, the best you can hope for is an honest productive job that pays relative peanuts.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RoHa

    The letters in the Age tody include one saying that climate change is not just hotter and drier, it’s more energy in the system leading to more extremes, more cyclonic cyclones, droughtier droughts, floodier floods, turnier worms, etc.

    I’ve heard this several times recently, so it looks as though they have given up on the actual warming, and want to drag in everything else.

    But from what I have read, the extremes aren’t any more extreme than they used to be. Time for Jo and the techies to start setting up a solid evidence-bsed case against this line.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      The only way that more “energy” could come into the system is if something or someone was supplying that energy.

      And there’s only one place that all additional energy ends up – in thermal energy.

      Additional thermal energy must be evidenced by an increase in temperature somewhere.
      But so far we can’t find it in the sky, on the land and in the ocean.

      The claim that climate change can be evidenced by anything other than a change in thermal energy (but rather by cyclones, droughts, storms etc etc) is patently absurd.

      If the gullibles lose the global warming debate, they lose the climate change debate.

      And they have absolutely no way of forecasting long term trends in storm activity, nor do they have any credible theory of how additional energy comes into the sustem without manifeting as heat. The best they can do is spread alarmist propoganda to coincide with any and all natural disasters and make false claims about increasing numbers and severity of such disasters.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        RoHa

        “Additional thermal energy must be evidenced by an increase in temperature somewhere.
        But so far we can’t find it in the sky, on the land and in the ocean.”

        Have you looked behind the sofa?

        “The best they can do is spread alarmist propoganda to coincide with any and all natural disasters and make false claims about increasing numbers and severity of such disasters.”

        Sure, but a good solid response to those false claims would be useful. C3 (hate the politics of the site, but great collection of studies) has a lot of material, but it needs someone of Jo’s talents to summarise it.

        http://www.c3headlines.com/are-droughts-floods-more-frequent


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Hypothesis: That you can say whatever lies you like about the sponsors of climate scepticism and get away with it.

    Theory:
    1) Go to the ICCC6 videos page.
    2) Click Robert Carter’s name for his video (40 minutes).
    3) Remember the Black Swan.

    Method:
    1) Fabricate a document about the Heartland Institute.
    2) Post it everywhere.
    3) Wait for the white Swan.

    Data: Here’s your Black Swan, DeSmog.

    Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified, but will warmists try to endlessly replicate this result?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    http://sn106w.snt106.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=3&messageId=475d1b76-5bca-11e1-8531-00237de46128&Aux=2044|0|8CEBDEE34B59480||0|0|0|0|1|5,53&maxwidth=220&maxheight=160&size=Att&blob=M3wyMDEyMDIwOTA4MjA0NF9pbWFnZTQ0LmpwZ3xpbWFnZS9qcGVn

    Talking about cartoons…….some more carbon tax cartoon gold from Pickering.
    (And apologies if this has been posted here before!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    http://sn106w.snt106.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=4&messageId=475d1b76-5bca-11e1-8531-00237de46128&Aux=2044|0|8CEBDEE34B59480||0|0|0|0|1|5,53&maxwidth=220&maxheight=160&size=Att&blob=NHwyMDEyMDIwOTA4MjA0NF9pbWFnZTUzLmpwZ3xpbWFnZS9qcGVn

    And while were at it, how about Larry’s contribution to the boat people discussion? Come to think of it, Gillard could do with this level of support right about now!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Now how did I not notice this earlier.

    On Carter’s web site he says of himself:

    He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.

    Right, so no research funding from special interest groups… unless you count metastudies and the NIPCC reports as research, because Heartland is a special interest group.
    It is also ambiguous as to whether the “such as” is providing examples or is an exhaustive definition of the groups from which he does not receive research funding. If the latter interpretation then we know why Heavy Industry is not in the list, because that’s who Heartland stands for.

    I hate to say it, but if the purpose was to gain the moral high ground by claiming he isn’t taking money from any special interests to support a particular line of research, his statement now fails. Bob Carter has been a bit of a hero of mine in this debate so it is unfortunate, but necessary, to diagnose his error here.

    Not exactly a surprise he receives some support from Heartland since he has been at their conferences from the very first one. But the stolen budget document proves two things about the Climate Denial Machine: 1) it exists, and 2) its name is totally disingenuous because Carter is not in denial about anything. Carter’s main research does not revolve around global warming so his ARC grant is not exactly a source of bias, but this Heartland supplementary income certainly encourages a bias in that subject. There is nothing particularly bad about that if what they are saying is based on legitimate evidence and is providing the missing defence in the mainstream kangaroo court of carbon prosecution. I’m pretty sure our government paid more than $1666/month to Ivan Milat’s defence lawyer. In other words, being paid doesn’t mean you’re paid to tell lies, it serves to direct your attention. As long as science and the justice system are allowed to work normally, the truth will come out even in the presence of biased players. Indeed, it can come out only because of the incentives of biased players. And as Jo points out, there are many players in this issue with biases vastly greater.

    Bob, fix up that funding statement, then get back on that high horse and go get `em.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      because Heartland is a special interest group.

      What is Heartlands “special interest” Andrew?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        You’re kidding right? They help the strategies of anyone who donates decent money, like the steel industry, Koch, etc, to keep jobs in America, keep their sector of the industry competitive, and support free market approaches instead of central planning and excessive red tape.

        And that’s a whole bunch of interests that are very special because I happen to generally agree with them.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    bob carter

    Easy Andrew.

    The statement on my website is very carefully worded, and remains accurate.

    Small payments for professional consultancy jobs (in this case, editing) have nothing to do with research.

    Besides which, these payments are transparent and their source has been fully disclosed in the Foreward of the 2011 NIPCC interim report.

    Bob


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Great to have Bob Carter here, and his comment is most welcome, thank you Bob


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Assuming you are who you claim to be… (It is the real Dr. Carter) CTS
      …you’re essentially saying that the statement fits the facts because you interpret “research” to mean original measurements and modelling rather than a more general definition of “research” which would describe any study that generates a report – such as the research papers in philosophy that don’t do measurement of any kind, or policy research in politics. If a reader adopts the latter opinion, there’s an error, whereas in the first interpretation (and when carefully worded) there is no error.

      Well I’m saying there is a common interpretation that can be applied even by parties biased in your favour that can still cause some friction. I call it an error, you might call it a misinterpretation. Given that parties far less enamoured with your dedication to giving voice to reason over the years could seize upon such ambiguity with greater consequence, I think you should judge whether to “fix” the statement based on a consequentialist framework rather than based only on your direct knowledge of the purity of the original intent.
      Or in other words, you and I aren’t the only ones who will read it.

      As a skeptic I had to set aside loyalties for the moment and ask the question, so it is actually good of you show up out of the woodwork to answer it. I can totally accept you aren’t trying something dodgy, but how many times do you want to have this conversation with all and sundry? I think economics will win here as it always does. There’s my hypothesis. :)


      Report this

      00

      • #

        McRae, your idea of research may be similar to the public, but Bobs page details his scientific research (I assume that is Bob’s page):

        “Bob’s public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal research publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.

        Bob Carter’s current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.”

        In the context of the page it’s quite reasonable to assume that when he says special interest groups don’t fund his research, they don’t.

        People who are not research scientists refer to “researching” a report. Yes, the trolls will take it out of context. Yes smear merchants hold our team to higher standards that they do for their players. We can only pander so much. If Bob has a scientific point wrong, why don’t they attack the science?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          JN, I have tried your advice and found it didn’t work. Personally I still find the word “research” retains its dictionary definition even after reading the rest of the page above it; it’s not contextually customised.

          It was not my intention to cause a fuss, as unbelievable as that may sound in hindsight. I’m just debugging a statement. As a programmer that’s almost as automatic as breathing. When I highlight problems I sometimes don’t pause to think about whether the substance or style will upset people. It’s a personal failing.

          To point out that a generalisation is disproved by an exception is not the same as claiming the generalisation was designed to be false. But that logic won’t stop people from reacting to my comment as some sort of attack.

          I have already emailed Dr Carter directly about this to apologise for any upset. I would also encourage him to drop in to this blog more often and share some climate war stories. It would be a hoot.

          > If Bob has a scientific point wrong, why don’t they attack the science?

          The answer to that is easy and has never been in dispute. Obviously it’s because they know Bob will always win the point.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    JohnP

    Spooner did the same trick last year and this time he follows sleight of hand that the UK Daily Mail did late January. While the stats aren’t significant there is all the same a warming trend i.e. temperatures are increasing year on year. This is what the UK Met Office had to say ‘what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.’

    Apart from that the statistically confidence significant level is conventionally 95% for the data to be beyond all doubt of randomness. The actual level of significance for the published data came in at 93% – are you seriously quibbling about 2%?


    Report this

    00