JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

An open invitation to Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us here

Tim Flannery. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Dear Tim,

Now that the government funded golden platform is gone, you say you willnot be silenced. ” Bravo, I say.

Perhaps I can help? When I didn’t want to be silenced five years ago, I set up my own blog. I got no government grants. Any financial support comes from readers voluntarily (thanks to Peter, Bill, Bernd, and Malcolm yesterday).  I forgo a job to run this blog and get called a “denier” by government funded academics and politicians. Nevertheless, this is the largest skeptical climate science blog in the country, and one of the handful of largest in the world.

To help you until you get your own blog running in full, I extend an open invitation to you for a guest post anytime, unedited, and in full with graphs and images. Links to your own material will help your google rank.

You talked about the importance of scientific discussion, after the Climate Commission was abolished yesterday: “I believe that Australians have a right to know – a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change.”

Where better to post accurate information on climate change?

Keeping in the spirit of things, I’d insist commenters stick to scientific remarks, without ad hominems and personal insults.

On this blog you can reach the very people who are, as you might say, unconvinced about the extent of man-made global warming, and slowing down progress on climate action. Since the evidence is overwhelming, there must be plenty to write about. Convince us with what convinces you.

You may feel cynical about the chances of winning any skeptics over, but I would point out many (like me) were once believers, so our minds can be changed. And you can always point to the post, as proof you tried every avenue.  People will be able to judge for themselves, right?

Professor Flannery said: “We don’t sell a message. We simply provide information for the Australian public to make up its own mind.”

Sincerely,

 

Jo Nova

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (221 votes cast)
An open invitation to Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us here, 9.1 out of 10 based on 221 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mdqpjsj

197 comments to An open invitation to Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us here

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Well done, JoNova. *Golf Clap* My guess is that he will not respond, but again he could surprise.

    10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This is the reason I’ve followed Jo’s site from the start, no nonsense and willing to admit when wrong.
    A far cry from the other camp, almost an alternate universe.

    811

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Good point. I can’t think of anything Ms Nova reported that was wrong or didn’t correct immediately.

      I don’t know of anything that Flannery wrote about that wasn’t demonstrated to be wrong, and Flannery never modified anything he stated. (Flannery was known to me long before he was head of the Climate Commission, and his ideas have consistently been similar to those of Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich never contributed anything demonstrated to be correct as far as I am aware)

      410

      • #

        Ehrlich has a 40 year, 100% record of getting every prophecy (for, Yea Lord, that is what they are) wrong. And now he’s a member of the Royal Society.

        260

      • #
        Tim

        Ehrlich and Flannery exemplify the false harbingers of doom that are well-paid and well-titled for their efforts.

        Their only expertise seems to be that they are articulate, well connected and have the title of ‘scientist’.

        40

  • #
    Maverick

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply Jo, we would hate to lose you!

    510

    • #
      Bill

      I will be shocked if he bothered to reply or especially make a post with graphs, etc.

      160

    • #

      Flannery isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, in fact I’d go as far as saying the man is a fool. Here is why…

      Way back before the election, Tony Abbott flagged that he would axe the Climate Commission. The reason (he gave at the time) was that the Commission was a waste of taxpayers money as…

      “Mr Abbott said Prof Flannery had many appointments as well as the one from the federal government to talk about his views on climate change.

      “We have the benefit of his views anyway. I’m not sure that we need to pay more to get them.”
      See this link

      So what does the baffoon Flannery do? He proves Abbott 100% correct by declaring to all and sundry that he will not be silenced.
      I can just see Abbott and his people rolling on the floor laughing as they read the press clippings.
      I didn’t laugh, I just rolled my eyes and shook my head at the wasted dollars and resources granted to this carpetbagging rent seeking snake oil salesman.

      321

  • #
    Popeye

    Hope he takes up the challenge – although he would have a VERY hard time trying to change my opinion.

    I wonder if he has the “cajones”?

    Jo, why don’t you also ask David Suzuki to join in. Had the displeasure to inadvertently catch him on Sunrise on 7 this morning ably supported by Andrew O’Keefe and the female sycophant (her name escapes me but too insignificant for me to bother finding out – just a head nodding passenger). After watching the three of them for ten minutes I didn’t know whether it was worth having my breakfast or not since we’re all going to FRY very shortly – hahahahaha.

    Why don’t you ring Andrew O’Keefe Jo and see whether he’s into providing balanced reporting or just “Popcorn” news.

    Cheers,

    501

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I sincerely hope that Professor Flannery avails himself of this offer.

    What better platform could one choose, in order to convince the skeptical amongst us that the dangers are real, and the money spent to date on mitigation has been well worth it.

    To date, the debate has been an admixture of science and politics, so it has been hard for the layperson to determine what might be real, and what might be political posturing. Freed from the shackles of political considerations, Professor Flannery will now have the opportunity to express his deep and well considered understanding of the challenges facing mankind in relation to climate change.

    Well done, Jo. As usual, you manage to surprise even the most cynical of us.

    491

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    How many days shall we wait until silence is regarded as a No Thanks?
    Perhaps he should accept within 3 or 4 days and then post within 2 weeks.
    If it is No Thanks now and he changes his mind in a few months that will be okay with me also.
    I have low expectations for this – expecting nothing. If he responds even with a No Thanks that would exceed my expectations. If a post says anything relevant and reasonable I will be impressed.

    230

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I suggest we wait until sea levels have risen by, oh a couple of feet, or so. By most predictions, that shouldn’t take too long at all.

      472

    • #
      Gordon of 2902

      Blessed are those who expect nothing, for assuredly they will not be disappointed.

      211

  • #
    AndyG55

    Tim might just find that there are several people on this blog who would easily out qualify him as a climate scientist…..

    One reason, of course, being that he actually has NO qualifications as a climate scientist.

    He would really struggle against people that do actually know something.

    571

  • #
    Bob

    Jo:

    People who have devoted careers and reputations chasing false ideas never admit being wrong. Character is not one of their strong suites. Plus, I don’t know of any open letters to anyone that have been answered.

    In my opinion the game is not over. We are not having a climate crisis, we are having a media crisis. We have to keep pounding until the headlines are revealing the truth.

    Congratulations on your efforts, and thanks for all you do.

    611

    • #

      “Character is not one of their strong suites.” Well done Bob, you’ve nailed it in one word, that being “character”. It’s the word that espouses that particular aspect of a person that demands our respect. And you are right, we do have a major media crisis. Taxpayers are paying to have the wool pulled over their eyes by the state owned media. [SNIP - Jo]

      120

      • #
        Ross

        Bob and Ceetee
        I agree with you both that we are having a media crisis but in some ways the crisis is for people like Flannery. [SNIP Ross, let's give him a chance to respond before diagnosing the outcome - Jo]
        [On the new media, people] cannot get away with glib , unsubstantiated comments. [SNIP].

        As an aside on the media crisis issue — I cancelled my subscription to our local paper in Wellington , NZ a couple weeks ago after having it for a few decades. It is a Faifax paper. A couple of days ago I got an offer to renew the subscription which amounted to a 35% discount on what I had previously paid. That is what I’d call a media company in crisis.

        —–

        Ross, edited though your comment was mild. Just keeping in the spirit of things… Jo]

        30

  • #

    Let’s see if he has the guts and the intellectual honesty. Your letter is entirely reasonable, and if he means what he says, he should accept your offer.

    On the other hand, I won’t hold my breath.

    351

  • #

    The popcorn is stocked up, ready …

    101

    • #

      Tim Flannery, the climate bone scientist ought to be able to bring along his ‘expert’, Karoly maybe, and Jo brings her ‘other half’, I would pay to see that.

      230

  • #
    Tim

    “…many (like me) were once believers…”

    I count myself in this category until I decided to do some research and came across independent experts and academics with an objective view of science that weren’t on the ‘green payroll’.

    In time I deduced just who’s pulling the strings and levers – and why.

    As a sceptic, I anxiously await some verifiable information to make me now think otherwise. Tim Flannery, come on down.

    Cheers,
    A different Tim

    300

    • #
      Neville

      Yup, me too, Tim (the different one)!
      I also tended to be sympathetic to the generality of the “fry and die” message.
      Then, when I began to examine the issues more closely, I discovered anomalies, and some bloody big ones!
      I strayed to this and other sites, and began to find out the size of the whole scam.
      So I also say: ‘give us your best shot, Mr Flannery’ !!

      PS: I say sympathetic to the message, rather than enthusiastic, and here’s why.
      I’m making a presumption that a fair proportion of commentators here are – like me – more or less ‘conservationists’, when it comes to the natural world. By that, I simply mean that I would prefer some care and attention taken to conserving and taking care of our planet – but not to the complete expense of people; obviously there needs to be some balance – and common sense.. I stress very strongly – I am NOT a ‘greenie’, however that may be defined by some. Nor am I a member of the watermelons Greens. I simply would like to see all due conservative care taken – as much as is reasonably possible – when we humans need to develop our resources. And then prompt correction when we find out what we didn’t think of, after such a development. Pretty normal stuff, really. One gets the best info one can, proceeds prudently, and fixes up one’s errors. And learns from the mistakes for next time. Fairly much exactly like all the rest of life’s issues!!

      180

      • #
        Tim

        Neville – I would say that you speak a real lot of commonsense. You know what is needed and don’t need paid spin doctors telling you otherwise.

        70

    • #
      Neville

      PPS: nice work, Jo. Thanks!

      50

    • #
      Robert JM

      I wouldn’t worry tim, I became a sceptic the moment I discovered about water vapour positive feedback.
      Basically this theory utter BS.
      1/It is a violation of basic logic; if extra water vapour caused the atmosphere to warm why would it wait 4.5billion years for humans to add a little bit of CO2 before doing so.
      2/It is in violation of le Chateliers principle; A system will move towards equilibrium, and from equilibrium it will resist any forcing, ie why negative feedback dominates.
      3/It is in violation of gibbs free energy priciples; Basically positive feedback can only occur through two mechanism, the 0th law of thermodynamics or through internal cannibalisation of one energy source by another. The 0th law is not in effect here and only applies when you connect two separated systems to each other and they accelerate towards the new equilibrium (ie a nuke). Gibbs free energy (and by extension the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is violated here because warming (ie an increase in sensible heat energy) will always occur at the expense of the other energy types, but in CAGW it cause an increase in latent heat energy at the same time.
      4/Observations already showed that that relative humidity was variable at the time the theory was created and consequently the very notion of the theory, fixed relative humidity, was already falsified by observation at the outset!

      120

    • #
      Jazza

      I was always sceptical, mainly because of the overkill by government spruikers. Then was I researched and read more about “global Warming” I found it hard to accept that with the miniscule-well definitely very minor % of the CO2 in our atmosphere — that came from human activity, WE are frying the earth and can affec/neutralise the rest of the GHGs and atmosphere to any realistic level
      After that more doubts rolled on till I called BS on the climate change drivel–the most outrageous scam has been perpetrated on Australians with the CO2 tax,in mho, not only due to the ex Pm lying and bringing it in to gain power and keep it, but because the public has never been told what benefit it is supposed to bring them, only the Bulldust of the likes of Flannery and co and the serially stupid KRudd with his 400 scientists in white coats and holding clipboards–God just how stupid did Labor think Australian adults are??!!

      70

  • #

    Good Afternoon Jo,
    What an absolutely splendid idea.
    Oh, and by the way, could I perhaps add a little teaser to this challenge to you Prof. Flannery!! ..
    (I hope you take up this challenge, but please forgive me if I’m a little dubious [SNIP]!)
    At one of your earlier public meetings, at Ipswich, you may recall I asked you a question, which you, Will Steffan, and your female colleague all refused (or were simply unable) to answer!! ..
    Please name for me three – just three – delegates to either the Copenhagen or Durban IPCC. annual conferences who either rode by push-bike to most sessions, or stayed overnight in a tent?
    Clearly this would remove any lingering fears that I or my wife (this question’s originator) or thousands/millions of others may have throughout this great country that all you in the AGW. World-wide group-think sub-prime-science network simply say one thing … (and do another)!!
    (Now remember there were at least ten thousand participants at both conferences … so this request of meagre three names should not be that hard to accommodate.
    Yours very very sincerely,
    Reformed Warmist of Logan
    —–
    Reformed WOL, while this is a moral question, it’s not relevant to the science. — Jo]

    232

    • #
      bobl

      I was at that meeting, that was the one where Will Steffan couldn’t decide whether warming was gonna be 3 or 5 degrees C. Internally inconsistent I would say.

      There was no scientific credibility on display at that meeting at all, oh except in some parts of the audience. The part that wasn’t allowed to ask questions, since the audience was clearly stacked.

      I still have the video recordings. Including a mashup of the inconsistent [SNIP]. I have to say the Ipswich forum did nothing positive for my blood pressure.

      90

    • #
      Tim

      “Preliminary research results indicate that bicycle-riding tent-dwellers are vulnerable to those increasingly extreme weather events, the exponential growth of dangerous motorised vehicles and of course, CO2 induced rising ocean and tidal river levels in resort areas.

      We would gladly join them, but we are needed at the upper echelons in order to make influential decisions, attend conferences and stay comfy.”

      81

    • #

      Good Afternoon Jo,
      With all due respect…
      It is relevant to the science, simply because it goes to the absolute heart of the whole matter!
      I.E. the character of many of those on the “AGW.-business-bus”!!
      Kind regards,
      Reformed WOL.

      10

  • #
    Denise

    “I believe that Australians have a right to know – a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change.” SO if that is the case, why has Tim, the IPCC, governments, main stream media etc been so reluctant to acknowledge, print and debate the alternative scientific evidence and data which is there for all to see on the internet but which is so actively concealed from the general populace through the channels that most would normally access.

    290

    • #
      Robert JM

      Because if the media ever mentioned that CAGW was based water vapour positive feedback then the general public could check the data themselves and know they were being conned!

      60

  • #

    It took some time but the wait was worth it. Now that we have a new government maybe they can spend some money on some real science that will make a real difference.

    My paper “Are Uranus & Neptune Responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?” is published in the peer reviewed journal (IJAA)

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/Home.aspx?IssueID=3540#36513

    To be clear the principles in the paper are very different to what Landscheidt laid out, solar cycle 24 is exactly on track as predicted first in 2008.

    The changing weather patterns because of a changing Sun will be important to understand if we are going to spent billions opening up the top end.

    221

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    I can’t see Tim doing anything for free, especially on a non-prophet site.

    471

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      But he’s not doing it for free, he would be doing it for the chance to demonstrate that he is scientist of integrity – a reward worth more than diamonds and rubies.

      150

    • #
      David

      G’day Ken,

      “especially on a non-prophet site”

      Clever pun or spelling mistake?

      100

      • #

        It might be more than a pun. In the Old Testament there were a number of prophets whose major message was to “mend your wicked ways or face the coming apocalypse.”

        The views that many skeptics have of Tim Flannery is akin to the false prophets in Matthew 7:15-17

        Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. … every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

        Which in scientific language is the equivalent of saying that pseudo-scientists are only after power; their scientific predictions will be contradicted by the evidence; nor will their claim to be true scientists (in the tradition of Newton, Curie and Feynman) hang together on closer examination.
        Surely, if Tim Flannery believes his science is true, then he will welcome this opportunity to evangelize to the heathen, rather than continue to preach to the converted.

        230

      • #
        Ken Stewart

        David:

        As an old school teacher, I am very careful with spelling. Manicbeancounter gets it.

        160

    • #
      ColdinOz

      Non prophet site, I love it

      90

  • #
    Manfred

    Convince us with what convinces you

    Bravo Jo, an outstanding and generous invitation.

    I should say however that a part-time government appointment at $180k p.a. should not require anyone to explain their basis for being convinced about their own job description.

    Is it not self-evident?

    Another case of IPCC science best described as politics in drag, only this time an Australian version?

    140

    • #
      Speedy

      Manfred

      Don’t forget that Prof Tim is a former Australian of the Year. No doubt, in a spirit of civic duty, he will be in communicado with Jo as we speak, anxiously hoping to avail himself of her most generous offer. /S.

      By the way, isn’t it nice to pick up the paper and read about a government actually REDUCING waste? [SNIP - not on this thread - Jo] Onya Tony.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      211

      • #
        Manfred

        As an Australian of the Year, government appointee, media doyen and possessor of an immense salary for a part time job he could hardly have imagined (as a paleo-academic), he would surely have beamed in the mirror every morning and proudly exclaiming:

        Every Day in Every Way I am Getting Better and Better

        131

        • #
          Speedy

          Manfred

          [SNIP. Speedy thinks Tim Flannery would feel his money was well earned - Jo]

          As for me, I’d beg to differ. As does the current government, apparently.

          Cheers,

          Speedy

          60

    • #
      AJ

      What did drag do to deserve such an insult? :-P

      00

  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    [SNIP. Peter is not expecting Tim Flannery to take up this offer - Jo]

    61

    • #
      Peter Miller

      My apologies, I was being unnecessarily snotty.

      Put nicely: it would be highly unusual for a leading spokesman for man made climate change to respond positively to an invitation to debate, or state, their views in an environment not usually perceived to be in their comfort zone

      101

  • #

    It would be really great if Tim Flannery could post here. One of the my criticisms of the climate consensus is that there is no reaching out to understand the arguments of the other side. This is contrary to what I learnt in geography at high school (looking at the advantages and disadvantages) and economics at university (comparing and contrasting). I am sure that we would be far more advanced in our understanding of climate if at the outset the global warming hypothesis had not been declared a fundamental truth, but climate science had to win over doubters.

    140

    • #
      JCR

      Spot on! Judith Curry, Prof of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech, and, I suppose, a lukewarmer, has been saying this all along. Her argument has been that it is always better to engage people who disagree with you than to marginalise and insult them.

      60

      • #
        Robert JM

        Scientific arguments should be settled by deathball!

        30

        • #

          No No No
          Complex scientific arguments are not settled by a single instance and are certainly not settled by force. CAGW is a number of hypotheses stacked on top of one another. Sufficient for the projected forecast prophesied climate apocalypse (or at least non-trivial, net adverse, climate change as a consequence of human-caused warming) to happen if is necessary not just for each of these hypotheses to be true, but to be true to a large magnitude.
          To suggest that “scientific arguments should be settled by deathball!” is akin the the medieval notion of finding the truth through trial by combat. In modern day notions it is more loosely related to truth by numbers of supporters.

          20

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Congratulations Jo. [SNIP. Let's keep in the spirit of things - Jo] I have set out to simplify my analysis of the IPCC junk science, anti-flanneling.

    And it all comes down to a single sentence: ‘Houghton’s assumption that the atmosphere is a grey body is wrong’.

    So, here is the logic. Arrhenius’ claim of black body emission is wrong, easily shown by correct radiation physics. However, Houghton’s assumption allows half the extra energy to be offset at ToA by the assumption the Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation can apply there. This with the false assumption of 33 K ghe gives the ‘positive feedback’ from overly warm sunlit oceans. The rise in temperature is then compensated by assuming double real low level cloud optical depth in hind casting.

    So, Houghton muddied the waters. The models are institutional fraud to please the funding bodies/politicians. I have worked out the real physics and corrected the other 11 IPCC mistakes.

    [SNIP. Jo] Australia now needs to eject the [poor science] from academic institutions. The same goes for the UK.

    211

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Eh?
      I was hoping the product of a simplification process would be simple to understand.
      Presumably you’ve spent a lot of time on the innards of the physics, but I’m sorry to say you aren’t explaining it very well here.
      Do you have a comprehensible explanation available? Perhaps as a document in PDF or Word or LaTeX format?

      For a start… That bit about the Kirchoff Law applying at TOA sounds like an error too big to have remained uncorrected after all this time. Did he really assume that the Kirchoff characteristic surface was at TOA, instead of making that a dependent variable and figuring out the altitude at which the law held? If that is what Houghton did… yikes. So it’s somewhat interesting to find out that in Houghton’s own words:

      most of the enhanced greenhouse effect occurs not because of changed absorption of radiation from the surface (although some change does occur in the wings of the carbon dioxide band where absorption is weaker), but because as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the average height (around 6 km) from which carbon dioxide emits radiation to space also increases.

      That’s not actually a use of Kirchoff’s law, but it shows he knew the critical height is not the TOA. What’s more interesting is that Houghton dismisses back-radiation as being merely symptomatic but not the cause of the rise in equilibrium temperature.

      The problem with explaining this stuff is very much what Lucia wrote in a comment on ClimateAudit 5 years ago:

      It is pretty obvious all these types of questions do need to be addressed somewhere. They are asked over and over by people who know some physics, heat transfer, thermo, fluid mechancis, but don’t want to spend 40 hours a week for a month doing a literature search to get answers to and endless series of questions that occur to them. …
      For some reason the IPCC hasn’t created these documents, nor have the gov’t. agencies. Peer reviewed articles are great; text books are great. But neither of these takes the place of the full document that is required: an full engineering exposition.

      Hence my question about whether you’ve put all your thoughts together in a document.

      40

      • #
        cohenite

        The

        critical height

        is the characteristic emission layer, CEL, which is the level where, given the particular conditions, at that place, which vary continually over the atmosphere, the optical depth is 1.

        An optical depth of 1 is where there will be maximum backradiation, or more precisely the highest level where backradiation is reduced by outgoing longwave radiation [OLR].

        The CEL is therefore where AGW is properly sourced.

        Douglass and Christy did an interesting paper on this in 2008.

        Douglass and Christy’s (DC) study is based on 1979-2008 UAH non-surface data. After extracting ENSO, volcanoes and allowing for latitude band effects, they isolate a CO2 signal of+0.070g/decade; where g is the gain due to any feedback. In respect of ‘g’ DC note “there is general agreement among climate scientists for the case of no feedback”. (p3).

        DC estimate there is an undeducted solar irradiance forcing (SF) of 20% (p10), or +0.014C per decade. This generally agrees with AR4’s figure for SF of +0.12Wm-2, which translates to a temperature of +0.16C per century (see Chp 2 pp 187-193). AR4 has reduced this SF figure from TAR’s estimate of +0.3Wm-2, or a temperature increase of approximately 0.4C PC (see 6.11.1.2; FIG 6). The AR4 amount for SF is based on the period from 1750-present, but, according to FIG 2.17, the bulk of the SF has occurred in the 20thC. DC’s SF estimate seems about right then.

        So, deducting DC’s SF from +0.07 – +0.014 = +0.056C PD for a CO2 signal in the period 1979-2008.

        However, DC note that “the global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years”. (Abstract).

        The point about all this is that not that AGW, or indeed criticism of AGW, does not proceed on scientific principles but that the effect of these principles in the atmosphere, the real world, is not as it is in the laboratory or in the textbook because the interaction of the scientific principles is obviously producing results which are fundamentally different from laboratory or textbook theory.

        It has been patently obvious for some time that AGW science does not translate to the real world; the major criticism of AGW should proceed on that basis.

        81

        • #
          cohenite

          this:

          An optical depth of 1 is where there will be maximum backradiation, or more precisely the highest level where backradiation is reduced by outgoing longwave radiation [OLR].

          Should be:

          An optical depth of 1 is where there will be maximum backradiation, or more precisely the highest level before backradiation begins to be reduced by outgoing longwave radiation [OLR].

          21

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          However, DC note that “the global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years”. (Abstract).

          The point about all this is that not that AGW, or indeed criticism of AGW, does not proceed on scientific principles but that the effect of these principles in the atmosphere, the real world, is not as it is in the laboratory or in the textbook because the interaction of the scientific principles is obviously producing results which are fundamentally different from laboratory or textbook theory.

          It has been patently obvious for some time that AGW science does not translate to the real world; the major criticism of AGW should proceed on that basis.

          cohenite,

          Please clear this up for me. That summary appears to say that there’s no real world evidence that CO2 is doing anything. Is that a correct statement?

          Thanks

          00

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        What you have to understand is that there have been two major errors in IR physics. The first is that Tyndall’s experiment does not prove the absorbed external IR from a higher temperature source is thermalised in the gas phase. Instead, it pseudo-diffuses to a heterogeneity – clouds and Space. This is predicated on basic statistical thermodynamics, in effect the IR density of states in a ghg is set purely by temperature and you can’t increase it at LTE.

        The second error is to fail to understand that a pyrgeometer outputs the Radiation Field from the observed temperature, but this is not a real energy flux, rather the potential energy flux to absolute zero.

        Radiation modelling e.g. MODTRAN is accurate because it works on experimental data for absorption and emission. However, it all goes wrong when you add in ‘back radiation’ then have to offset this by imaginary return of ground and cloud surface radiation via the Kirchhoff’s Law assumption.

        Most net IR from the ground via the atmospheric window. There is new physics showing why this happens – it’s to do with self absorbed gigs emitting at the black body level at an optical heterogeneity but well below that in the bulk.

        I have written a draft paper showing how CO2-AGW is near zero. It’s because the present implied assumption that the spectral distribution of OLR is independent of CO2 is not true, easily proved by irreversible thermodynamics. CO2 is the working fluid of the heat engine lower atmosphere to space exactly offsetitng OLR warming.

        10

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Yeah, that’s all Greek to me. I can now see I am going to have to do more reading about this whole topic area before I have any hope of understanding your answers. :)
          I’m also wondering if your hypothesis has enough meat on its bones to be testable, perhaps by being implemented in a new RT module to replace the erroneous ones in current GCMs, which would then make testable predictions.

          For example the first ‘error’ seems to be saying that the CO2 will absorb long wave (15um) light but dispose of it radiatively so quickly that the gas molecule never speeds up and so never heats up in any measurable way. I guess that part should be verifiable with data already on hand, because it predicts … what… a constant gas temperature and almost as much longwave radiation outgoing as incoming? Whereas the conventional “erroneous” theory would say… what… that the gas increases in temperature and has almost no outgoing radiation in the absorption band? If that’s what you’re saying then that should be quite testable.
          What’s to stop any Uni physics lab from putting dry ice in a tall glass jar and measuring the outgoing spectrum when illuminated by a ceramic heating element? Would that simple setup be enough to prove the error?

          10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Every now and then I find some real gems that stimulate my thinking and add something to my knowledge or open up questions I want to look into. Comments 19 and 19.1 really have something to say to a guy like me who isn’t a physicist in any legitimate sense but is really interested in getting to the bottom of “global warming”.

      After my 5 years of looking into it I’ve come to the strong suspicion that atmospheric CO2 can’t really do as theory predicts. If it could I would expect some signature of its activity that we could find and measure or some interest in designing an experiment that would find that signature. We have neither. Mere warming of the planet has never been satisfying evidence to me. Too many other things are possible drivers of climate change. And being unable to show that CO2 can do what is claimed it can do, shoots down gloom and doom predictions. But you’ve opened up that question again for me to take another look.

      Thank you turnedoutnice and Andrew.

      40

      • #
        Richard111

        This layman agrees with all that. Now someone, anyone, please explain to me how nitrogen, a major component of the atmosphere and TRANSPARENT TO ELECTROMAGNET RADIATION, is able to cool. Then add in oxygen and argon which all together make up 99.99% of the atmosphere.

        00

  • #
    Tiresome

    Additionally Tim may be unaccustomed to frequenting such visionary sites as this and if you have not made a personal direct invitation, surely merely posturing.

    015

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Unknown to many, “Tiresome” wrote:

      Tiresome
      September 21, 2013 at 6:06 pm · Reply

      So much for Jo saying ‘ insist commenters stick to scientific remarks, without ad hominems and personal insults.”

      If you are serious you will delete most of the comments (including mine!).

      Well, Tiresome, it seems you got only part of what you wanted. Your comment has been sent down the nearest memory hole, but all the ad-homs by “Bob”, “Cristoph Dollis”, “Reformed Warmist of Logan”, and “Peter Miller”, are all still there. Insults about moral fibre, character, scientific integrity, and even anatomy, are all allowed when their sentiment is popular in thumbs-up.
      I’m not making a judgement there, just documenting what has actually happened.

      My opinion is that this page is not the time for repeating the unfavourable assessment most of us have about Mr Flannery’s brief and tangential influence on the wafer-thin climate debate. Repeating ad-hominems reflexively at the merest mention of his name is going to have the opposite effect to what Jo intended.

      I bet this scientifically inept, dishonest, cowardly, rent-a-crowd tax thief doesn’t have the balls to show up here and talk to us” ==> Self-fulfilling prophecy. It becomes true simply by saying it here.

      103

      • #

        Andrew, thanks, I have been snipping, though I had not asked commenters to refrain (or asked moderators to snip) personal insults on this thread — I probably should have. You are right that insults are not helpful here.
        [Hence why I accomodated Tiresomes request to snip his comment. Pedantic mod oggi]

        51

      • #

        Andrew McRae,

        Saying, “Let’s see if he has the guts and the intellectual honesty. Your letter is entirely reasonable, and if he means what he says, he should accept your offer,” is not a personal attack. It’s a challenge.

        What you have done is make a false aspersion.

        However, apparently I was right and he was not up to accepting the challenge. My prediction in that regard was correct.

        10

    • #
      Angry

      “Tiresome”, the only thing TIRESOME here is your BS.
      Cretin!!

      23

    • #
      AndyG55

      ummm.. and how is Jo meant to contact him directly….

      Its not as if his email at the Climate Commission would still be working :-)

      31

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Tiresome said:

      Additionally Tim may be unaccustomed to frequenting such visionary sites as this and if you have not made a personal direct invitation, surely merely posturing.

      Tim Flannery would be unaccustomed to not having the Labor/Greens and a fawning media as a conduit.

      Though I don’t believe that a personal invitation would be a bad idea, I think you are having yourself on to think that Jo would fear having Tim here. Any fear would not be from her or the sceptics. You are confusing this blog with the other side, where comments are only welcome if they sing from the hymnal.

      40

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Shame on you JO, for only extending your offer to Professor Flannery. He would be the first to agree that his sterling efforts at the Commission were the result of the work of a whole team of dedicated, knowledgeable people.

    These people were referred to as “The Science Advisory Panel” at the former Commission. Your generous offer should be extended to all of them. For the record, they are:

    .
    Professor Matt England, University of New South Wales, expertise in global-scale ocean circulation and its influence on regional climate.

    Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne, expertise in climate variability and climate change, including interannual climate variations due to El Niño-Southern Oscillation and weather extremes.

    Professor Andy Pitman, University of New South Wales, climate modeller with a major focus on land surface processes.

    Professor Neville Smith, Bureau of Meteorology, expertise in ocean and climate prediction.
    Professor Tony McMichael, Australian National University, expertise in impacts of climate change on environmental conditions and human health.

    Dr Helen Cleugh, CSIRO, expertise in the dynamics of carbon, water and energy cycles in Australian ecosystems and the effects on climate variability and change – especially the vulnerability of land-based carbon sinks.

    Dr Lisa Alexander, University of New South Wales, expertise in changes in the frequency and/or severity of extreme climate events.

    Professor Brendan Mackey, Griffith University, expertise in forests and climate.

    130

    • #

      MV, Of course, you are quite right. Though, forgive me if I am wrong, the others don’t appear to be afraid the government is trying to silence them. And as it happened, I’ve already asked Andrew Pitman’s permission to reproduce his emails to me on my blog but strangely he declined.

      I would welcome submissions from any of the above, naturally, as I did with Prof Glikson.

      290

      • #
        Speedy

        Jo

        Very puzzling. I’ve never thought of Pitman et al as shy, shrinking violet types? My impression is they’re all over self-publicity like slugs on a lettuce.

        I wonder why this audience would perturb them?

        Cheers,

        Speedy

        20

    • #
      Alfred the Great

      Yes MV, firstly, it would be great if this advisory crew would declare what financial interests they have in government subsidised green technology ventures. After all, they ARE associated with Flannery.

      Secondly, I would love to hear them comment about Flannery’s wildly inaccurate predictions of doom and declare whether or not they provided advice supporting Flannery’s predictions.

      60

    • #

      Unfortunately MV, while they may claim to have expertise none have any or else they they do not tell the truth. For Example an article co-authored by Karoly had to be withdrawn as it had incorrect mathematics and also included data outside the zone they were examining and so not relevant. Also, Karoly’s butterfly paper at Lara (World War2 air strip and later extensive RAAF base, turned into an industrial estate) was just plain nonsense.
      [SNIP. Ad hom. Qualifications are not the issue -- data and reasoning are - Jo]

      50

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      I am familiar with most of them, who I regret to report strike me as “Klimate Kooks,” and I am not overly enthusiastic to hear some more Kook Agony from them.

      Sorry

      31

  • #
    Robber

    Why don’t we just let Tim get back to his study of mammalogy, still presumably funded by us, as there must be some big research findings not far away, as the other job on the climate commission was only part time. But his talents are seemingly unlimited. He holds the Panasonic Chair in Environmental Sustainability at Macquarie University. He is also the chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, an international climate change awareness group. But I haven’t been able to find any references to Tim’s research at Macquarie Uni, other than as a keynote speaker. And they have the mandatory research centres such as the National Centre for Climate Change Adaption Research Facility (NCCARF, Climate Futures, and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES). Seems like there are plenty of opportunities for Tony Abbott to refocus research into health and real science.

    60

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      If he returned to mammalogy, I am sorry to say the “research” would be strikingly familiar, such as “Influence of pesticides as ‘hormone interrupters’ on mammalian failure to reproduce.”

      (This was a prior study of his)

      20

  • #
    Skeptikal

    Jo,

    I don’t know why you are asking Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us. Explaining the science is not something he does.

    He issues dire predictions [SNIP - Jo]

    181

  • #
    Tel

    I think it’s excellent that Tim Flannery will not be silenced, not that I ever wanted to silence him in the first place, but think about it… if Tim Flannery will do for free the same spruiking that he used to be paid for… then we have made an instant saving for the Australian taxpayer. It’s a winner all round.

    180

  • #
    realist

    An expert witness is sometimes called for in court hearings where qualified expert evidence is required for testimony. Tim was appointed and generously rewarded by the Labor/Green coalition government in a part time job as THE senior expert to head the Climate Commission. So Tim is the perfect choice, as an “expert witness”, to argue the case for CAGW.

    If the CAGW meme was about the science, Tim and others on his (now defunct) Advisory Panel would be glad to take up your offer in a flash, as an opportunity to “have his say”, and to present and debate his argument supported by irrefutable evidence.

    However, if Tim declines or (more likely) ignores your invitation, then it’s clearly all about the politics and religion he and others appointed to the Climate Commission have promoted, which by default will signify it’s not about the principles of science or climate science, it’s pure, unadulterated political spin intended for unprincipled pecuniary gain.

    Tim might make the assumption your invitation is a polar opposite of his political world view, set-up to wedge him, as done almost as an ABC principle by an “unbiased” panel on Q&A or the Insiders, or by an “objective” analysis that Catalyst and other ABC “investigative” reporting do on a regular basis.

    We view the world through a prism of our own making. [SNIP. Let's nott preempt - Jo]

    131

    • #

      Realist, expert witnesses need to be professionally qualified and have experience otherwise they will be pulled to pieces by one of the QC/SCs. As indicated by a judge of the High Court they can be called by the Court and come under the jurisdiction of the court (ie not a support for either side although that unfortunately happens). I have been an expert witness, took the oath and was conscious of the Evidence Act. In a case in Qld a well known climate activist was found to be have at a minimum exaggerated evidence. He could have been charged with perjury. I suggest the Flannery would not be prepared to give evidence about weather or climate in a court.
      In relation to certain persons Jo does not like the word “qualified” being used so following the example of Rudd’s speech at his concession I will not.

      20

      • #

        It’s not that I don’t like the word “qualified” — it’s that this is science — qualifications don’t prove anything about the natural world. Talking about qualifications is a bar used to stop people from speaking the truth.

        70

        • #

          Jo, I respectfully disagree. To become a registered Engineer, Medical Practitioner or even a nurse or school teacher one has to be qualified to even start the process. Then, one needs to have experience and finally one has to be judged as competent by other registered peers. Normally, being qualified leads to some understanding which then is enhanced by actual experience. In the field of Technology (which includes science -particularly engineering science)to become an expert, as judged by others, one needs to have a good understanding and lots of experience.
          If one has little understanding of a particular technology (eg heat transfer) any reasoning is very likely to be unsound. Anyone who latches onto some so-called consensus demonstrates that they have no understanding.
          Flannery’s statement concerning the possibility of reduced rain and “even if it does rain the dams will not fill” shows not only poor reasoning but lack of understanding of all aspects climate. Dr Denis Jensen on the Bolt Show today made an apt comment on why Flannery was chosen to lead the Climate Commission.
          I will repeat that in my view not one of the members of the Climate Commission or their (“scientific”?) advisers have any expertise in the assessment of climate.

          40

          • #
            AndyG55

            Dr Jensen basically made the point that Flannery was chosen as a mouthpiece, and that’s all. (A loud-mouth piece of [self-snip])

            Certainly not for his scientific qualifications.

            Given that that was his role, why wouldn’t he relish the prospect of continuing it on Jo’s estimable blog. ;-)

            31

  • #
    PaulW

    I feel that your offer to Prof Flannery is excellent, and it is essential that he takes it up.

    I regularly visit this site and must admit it is a bit one sided on the sceptical side. However I feel most folk here are truly sceptical and as such a well argued case on the basis of fact would re-educate them. Therefore someone of Prof Flannery’s ability, experience and understanding of the issues and facts should have no problem in converting us after the rigorous, but scientific, debate that would ensue his contributions.

    In fact, on the basis of his announcements as to the peril the planet is in, he has a duty to contribute here and ensure we are all brought around to the right way of thinking.

    93

    • #
      Winston

      The problem of Prof Flannery contributing to this site is encapsulate in your last sentence. He would no doubt do so under the pretext of bringing us around to the “right” way of thinking, at least what he perceives to be so. [SNIP - Preempting - Jo]

      This is the entire problem of CAGW as a politicized debate, that being that the facts are sketchy and ill understood but are nonetheless beyond reproach, the data is far from pristine or transparent but is unable to be questioned, and our understanding of our planetary climate drivers is woefully inadequate yet no alternate or added information can be entertained by so called experts in climate. So it is thus obvious that the quest for knowledge and understanding is of marginal or secondary priority to selling a narrative, conveying a message, and controlling the economic and political response to fashion the global geopolitical landscape in their own image.

      80

      • #
        PaulW

        [SNIP - Preempting - Jo]

        However it was Prof Flannery who stated Australians had a right to know “authoritative, independent, accurate information on climate change”.

        Therefore he is beholden to the Australian public to live up to his own words. Especially as he believes we are on a planet destroying path. To do otherwise would be complicit in causing the end of the world.

        By contributing here he would be acting in good faith. Further messrs Watt, Macintyre and our own gracious host would be able to have an open and public debate. We might even tease Lord Monckton to join in.

        Prof Flannery was selected by our previous government to head the climate commission whose sole role has been to educate us. Therefore he must have been the foremost expert at explaining AGW, otherwise why would they have selected him. He has since had many years to gain further experience and had the full resources of the government to assist him not to mention the vast international network he had to call on. He has also been able to get the Australian media to run with his message. So he should have all the “facts” he states, we need, to hand.

        Therefore if he has any integrity he would gladly contribute here, after all it would cost him nothing but a bit of time, and he can even do it from home. In fact if he does have all the facts and proofs he could do more good here than in his entire time at the CC.

        The alternative is that he is not capable of providing a rational argument that will survive any level of scrutiny. [SNIP - We are interested in the science, so lets not get into questions of government value for money - Jo]

        [SNIP - Preempting - Jo]

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Australians had a right to know “authoritative, independent, accurate information on climate change”.”

          There are three descriptive adjectives in that sentence……
          … NONE of which should ever be used in the same sentences as “Climate Commission”

          31

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Paul,

      You are being sarcastic, right?

      00

      • #
        PaulW

        Roy,

        Sort of.

        I’m really P..d off

        For the record, I am a sceptic. Was from day one. Why, I remember the ice age scare of the 70′s, reading about ice ball earth, the drought (and heat) of the 60′s, still remember the jokes “save water shower with a friend”. I have become more sceptical as the amount of money involved grew. The old adage of “follow the money” was never so true, nor blatant. Also the nature of the debate is not scientific, it is personal.

        The Climate Commission was set up to re-educate us and they all got paid handsomely to have nice junkets around the country explaining the facts. But I cannot see any return on our money, in fact the case for AGW is diminishing. What’s more the commissioners are getting off scot free after failing in their job. If the facts had truly supported them and they had done their job this site would not be needed. Surely after all the time, resources and money they had they should have been able to convince Jo of the error of her ways. They were selling hot air.

        To me I believe actions speak louder than words and by not contributing here one must assume either the CC are ignorant of this site, which implies they are grossly incompetent, or they do not have the ability, tools, knowledge or facts to withstand scrutiny. The latter being the obvious answer.

        And for those who think the CC was above this blog or had better things to do with their time, their job was to explain it to us. If their arguments are so compelling where better than to come here.

        This AGW thing has become a matter of religion with some folk. Some will deny the warming as the oceans boil, while others will insist on warming as they freeze to death. Most of us just want the fact, all the facts and nothing but the facts, out in the open, without adjustment.

        Maybe soon.

        So I do still maintain that Prof Flannery has a duty to us, the public.

        140

      • #
        PaulW

        Feeling a bit better now……

        60

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    [SNIP - Preempting and not in the spirit - Jo]

    51

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Way to go Jo, very good idea. But just a couple of things. If Tim Flannery doses start his only blog [Snip insult] I don’t blame for that, if we all can do that we would. [SNIP re money]. Jo deserves the ad money for all her hard work and putting up with all that abuse from the believers now doesn’t she. The other reason I Jo and my fellow readers is Tim was the one that changed my mind from a believer (yes I admit it I fell for their ideology to) to a skeptic. He did it by letting slip with just a few words. They were, “would course some cooling” when he was asked about those Volcano’s the erupted in Iceland and South America a few years ago. The ones the grounded flights in Tasmania a year or so before the Carbon Tax came in. Global Cooling gases that cool the Climate, that just couldn’t be so I checked, yes they are gases the do that. No one ever says anything about them. Well wonder why? Because they the Greenies have already had a go at reducing them and if you look at the graphs as the gases go down the temperature goes up just as they predicted it would just as they were still working on get ride of the globe cooling gases and predicting that the world was just about to warming up. How many people do they claim globe warming has killed 20 million or so. Humm. I’m very glad that I don’t believe them now and don’t support them or vote for them. I don’t like having blood on my hands. I wonder how Tim feels about that? I wonder were all the drones are, maybe Tim and his fellow green believer priests should be looking up.

    52

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Begin Intrusive, Obnoxious and Completely Shameless Promotion:

      If you really want to read Tim’s blog use the Google Chrome browser which has not one but two very good ad blocking extensions that are really good at their job. They can both be had for free though I think it would be good to make a donation to the author who spends his time making one of them work so well. I haven’t seen a single advertisement since installing them.

      Chrome has a few weaknesses but they’re well worth tolerating to get rid of the garbage that comes along with the internet. Chrome also is lean, fast and unlike Internet explorer it doesn’t hang up or crash if you do something at a time when it isn’t able to handle it.

      End Intrusive, Obnoxious and Completely Shameless Promotion:

      We now take you back to your regularly scheduled programming. ;-)

      00

  • #

    Jo demonstrates well the true courage of conviction,
    That funds and Nobel Peace Prizes cannot reproduce !

    82

  • #
    el gordo

    David Karoly and Will Steffen could also join Flummery in a robust (yet polite) exchange of views with the locals… fat chance.

    61

  • #
    bobl

    Very interesting the forums, before they stopped them when the audiences got their measure. I admit I was a believer, what harm could come of it… Then having lived it and done the math I found that not only was this cult wrong, but the cult is very harmful too. I calculated that Rudds ETS or gillard tax would cost more than global GDP to stop warming. Frankly, this anti human cult must be shut down. It was Steffan’s refusal to answer my simple mathematical questions at the ipswich formum that made me the sceptic I am today. Thank Will! I deeply appreciate it.

    Tim, I know heaps more today than back then, happy to have you try to convince, but be aware the facts are not on your side. Would love the opportunity to properly educate you.

    80

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Jo I would suggest that perhaps a blank page without advance comments might have been the sort of challenge/invitation that might spark some in the media to also start a countdown to Mr Flannery’s eventual acceptance of your kind invitation (or not!!)as many would actually like to see the actual science as he understands it to be. I am sure other blogs would co-operate with this space project.

    The more the media press for a response, you would think a response would need to be forthcoming at least within the next 6 months. As milestone periods pass, the blank page could again be bought to the attention of Australian Media. Its XX months since Jo offered …….

    40

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘An open invitation to Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us here’, if Tim Flannery will allow me I’ll start this off, of course other factors are involved but are merely bit players in the overall scheme of things.

    ‘Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles’

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

    This is the main forcing agent, until the warmed up released co2, from the sinks, such as the tundra and out gassing from the oceans reaches such a level, about 800 years later and becomes a forcing agent!. The ice age is terminated and warming of the planet continues, until it reaches a stable state. So that explains the power of co2 and why it is currently in the dock for global warming! One of the main fingerprints is the increase in co2 levels since the industrial revolution and on top of that, since the end of WWII.

    [SNIP. BA's arguments can stand or fall on his words. Nameless youtubes are hardly "an argument" - Jo]

    Please feel free to highlight an errors in the link! [in my comment!]

    [The invitation was addressed to Dr Flannery, and not to you. -Fly]

    215

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘Convince us with what convinces you.’ well seen as it is unlikely that anybody on this thread would be willing or able to supply the information you are seeking, I decided to help you out, seen as it is highly unlikely that Dr Flannery will take time out and reply to your request! But it’s OK, I realise this site’s position is to keep the AGW danger downgraded, for whatever reason, who knows, and that is why you make disingenuous posts! You can lead an anti-science site to the truth, but you can’t make it think!

      But I am enjoying our correspondence, rest assured.

      [The site's position is to discuss the evidence, something you seem to struggle to do. -- Jo]

      121

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        [Seeing that it is highly unlikely that Dr Flannery will take time out to post a YouTube video as "evidence", he has one up on you -Fly] well YT is not evidence for anything, whatever give you that idea, but it can communicate such. It’s like books, they’re not evidence, it’s what they contain that is important! And who has written them.
        [I am glad that you now concede that YouTube is not evidence. Perhaps you will stop using links to your own YouTube videos, as if they were evidence? -Fly]

        [BA thinks youtube is a good way to communicate. If it is, his youtube channel would be a bigger hit that this text based blog. Yet again the evidence is against him. Youtubes are slow, the language is often not concise or easy to analyze without a transcript which is why we insist all commenters here (especially frequent ones) need to explain the key points in text. - Jo]

        016

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘[I am glad that you now concede that YouTube is not evidence. Perhaps you will stop using links to your own YouTube videos, as if they were evidence? -Fly]‘ I think what we have here is a failure to communicate here! It is what is in the vid that is the evidence, just like books, journals, peer reviewed papers, etc, etc, it is the text which is all important. Your attempt to portray me as denying that YT is of no use is FALSE and fools nobody!

          116

          • #

            BA — I’m sorry that you are not gifted at reading. For people who are, text based sites are faster and more informative. If the evidence is so compelling in the youtube, then you have always been free here to describe that evidence, and preferably link to the paper or the data if you can. Your persistent attempts to interrupt and divert the conversation here in order to advertise your youtube channel are ill-mannered. It is as if someone turns up to a book-club and tried to force everyone there to be quiet, to sit down and watch his video’s. (A boor!) The only reason I am explaining this to you for the fifth time is so that if and when I block you entirely for not being able to make logical arguments in text, it will all be on the public record. I expect (based on past behaviour) that you will wail that “Nova is afraid of youtube” and we will point to your 282 published comments, and our patience in explaining that this text based site requires commenters to write in text, and laugh at your transparent attempts to justify your adverts. – Jo

            210

    • #

      BA – as far as I’m aware there are no modern papers showing evidence of positive feedback from CO2 in the ice-cores. All references so far are old – pre the more detailed resolution ice cores that came out in 1999. Your argument (and New scientist’s) is pure speculation. It is quite likely that atmospheric CO2 responds to ocean temperatures and biological sinks and sources. Any feedback effect it has is so small no one can calculate from ice core data without the help of models and their unsubstantiated assumptions. There is no acceleration of temperature rise after the CO2 rises. CO2 stayed constant for 15,000 years while Temps fell by about 8 degrees at the end of the Eemian .

      120

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        There’s no evidence ANYWHERE in the geologic record of “positive feedback from CO2;” this would have to be reflected in the carbonate deposits etc (correlating rate of carbonate deposition from atmospheric CO2 with ambient temperatures).

        As far as I can see, the idea of living in a world where CO2 does nothing but make photosynthesis possible is simply unbearable to some people.

        50

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        @33.1.1.1.2

        ‘BA. I’ve checked the comment you are replying to and you must have put this in the wrong spot. For starters, can you get it right? I don’t know what point you are trying to make, because it is out of context. Therefore I cannot judge whether this ought be posted.’ – Jo

        My I suggest here! @33.2, ‘For starters, can you get it right?’ My further suggestion is you invest in a better blog software!

        [Sure, would you like to pay for it? - Jo]

        ‘no modern papers showing evidence of positive feedback from CO2 in the ice-cores’

        But as I said

        ‘But seen as you want a peer reviewed paper, that will have to come later when I’ve had time to search!

        ‘A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene, obtained from the Dome Concordia, Antarctica, ice core, reveals that an increase of 76 parts per million by volume occurred over a period of 6000 years in four clearly distinguishable intervals. The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase. However, the similarity of changes in CO2 concentration and variations of atmospheric methane concentration suggests that processes in the tropics and in the Northern Hemisphere, where the main sources for methane are located, also had substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.’

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.short

        And this is the main explanation how ‘the faint sun paradox’ managed to overcome the ‘snowball Earth’.

        CO2 300,000 ppm but snowball Earth

        ‘a puzzle called the faint sun paradox is explained by the warming effect of GHG, primly co2…but if co2 fell it wouldn’t take much to tip the world into an ice age…a positive feedback leading to more cooling, more ice, more reflection, until nearly all the world was covered by ice…there is no way the Sun could melt all this ice…wouldn’t expect such a thing…but something did…because the Earth turned into a hothouse…geologists say the reason is very simple, the only part of the Earth not covered by ice was warm spots caused by volcanoes…but they did release gases..,co2 under normal conditions this would have reacted with rocks and rainfall and get washed out to sea…but in snowball Earth, there is no rain, no weathering…so the co2 just keeps building up…so you have high co2 levels with glaciers at the equator but this is a dynamic process, it doesn’t stay like this’

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrm1KXttqDA

        Therefore co2 is a GHG and can/will have an influence on the climate, as we are presently seeing! If you don’t learn from history, we are condemned to create the same conditions.

        [Not "therefore" at all. If CO2 has not much effect on temperature then you don't need to explain why it was so high and the world so cold. Bad luck eh?. - Jo]

        “To some extent, our findings demonstrate that whatever happens to Earth, she will recover, and recover at a rapid pace,” Bao said. “Mother Earth lived and life carried on even in the most devastating situation. The only difference is the life composition afterwards. In other words, whatever humans do to the Earth, life will go on. The only uncertainty is whether humans will still remain part of the life composition.”

        http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/5362/new-information-about-snowball-earth-period

        [Yep. Get back to me when you find a paper that matters. Thanks. - Jo]

        05

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        FAO Jo

        ‘[Sure, would you like to pay for it? - Jo]‘ so you agree it is lacking and not fit for purpose! Ok, there is no ideal blog software really, but it is POOR! And you should get your sponsor to invest a bit of their dosh, because you seem to be jumping through hoops to keep them happy!

        ‘[Not "therefore" at all. If CO2 has not much effect on temperature then you don't need to explain why it was so high and the world so cold. Bad luck eh?. - Jo]‘ so I can infer that you haven’t watched the youtube link! Because it fully explains how co2 got to 300,000ppm and it was a snowball Earth!

        ‘[Yep. Get back to me when you find a paper that matters. Thanks. - Jo] what appears, is that you are asking to buy something that is not made! As yet I have not found a paper that confirms the action, there are papers that hint it happens, but perhaps it is early days and the research had not been completed yet, to the extent that it can be peer reviewed! Given the nature of the problem, eg perhaps there is no smoking gun lying around and it is proving difficult to find!

        04

    • #
      AndyG55

      “since the end of WWII”

      After WWII there was COOLING until the 1970′s

      There has only been one short period of coincidence of CO2 and temperature in the instrumental record.

      Any correlation exists ONLY in the intentional misdirections of those after the climate dollar, or the very weak minded who follow them.

      In the real world… THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 and TEMPERATURE in the instrumental record.

      81

      • #
        Robert JM

        But, but, but, 20 Million years ago CO2 dropped from 800ppm to 400ppm and an ice age followed 18 million years later.
        This proves that CO2 changes precede temperature changes! :)

        50

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘After WWII there was COOLING until the 1970′s’ quite correct! But there is a simple recognise reason for it! After WWII the consumer demand took over from the demands of war and the resulting atmospheric particles from all the extra coal burning to power it resulted in cooling until the 70s. When clean acts came onto force the combined effects of less particles and increased co2 levels resulted in warming! QED.

        03

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      blackadderthe4th said

      ‘An open invitation to Tim Flannery to explain climate science to us here’, if Tim Flannery will allow me I’ll start this off, of course other factors are involved but are merely bit players in the overall scheme of things. . . .

      [The invitation was addressed to Dr Flannery, and not to you. -Fly]

      How rude, he forgot to thank Tim Flannery.

      00

  • #

    We’ve all heard of the idea of the ‘level playing field’ in all sorts of things like international trade and so on. Now it’s the time for a level playing field for people like Professor Tim Flannery. He can be on a level playing field with all the other unfunded people in this debate like Jo Nova, David Evans, Anthony Watts and many others, including, at times, myself. He can be on a level playing field with all the contributors to this site – including those who are antagonistic to the main thrust of this site. He can be on a level playing field with ordinary citizens who have an opinion and want to contribute.

    When he announced, following his sacking, that he would not be silenced I was really offended by the imputed implication that he was somehow a victim. I was offended by the idea that he was bravely standing up for his right of free speech. I totally support his right of free speech. What I don’t support is the idea that, to have this right of free speech, he has to struggle against some demonic forces that are conspiring to silence him. It is a free country and he has a right to free speech. But he does not have a right to expect that other people have to pay him to exercise that right of free speech. So, I’m, sure we will all welcome the contribution of Professor Flannery as a private citizen on a level playing field with all the rest of us.

    And, another thing that I reflect on when I think about Professor Flannery. Under the Prime Ministership of John Howard, Tim Flannery was made ‘Australian of the Year’ in 2007. He was given a great step-up of national prestige and status. I just cannot see, however, that he has ever done anything to truly leverage that national prestige and status in the furtherance of his Climate Commission role. If he really believed that science supported the truth of global warming, he would have been everywhere promoting the message. He would have been like Bob Brown when he was in the Senate and leader of the Greens. Bob Brown was on TV just about every night – he was the easiest politician in Canberra to interview. If Flannery had been a true scientist and a true believer he would have been constantly engaging in the debate in every avenue available to him. But he was not. The only real time he got on Television was when he was sacked! And when his sacking happened, it was on the TV news that very night and he was there to tell us that he would not be silenced. His performance that night was a poor display of a truly self-interested and self-serving public figure who had been severed from the gravy train.

    203

    • #
      Winston

      Flannery shows complete gall to suggest he is being silenced when all that is happening is that the taxpayer no longer pays for his megaphone! He is still perfectly free to speak, and has only become a figure of ridicule because he has been so repeatedly and demonstrably wrong, and has cost the taxpayer millions by misdirecting funding away from sensible mitigation (eg. Dams), to stupid mitigation (windmills and desalination plants).

      Unfortunately, those who have an inflated belief in their own opinion expect that the public should pay them for the privilege and honour of receiving their “wisdom”, and become enraged and sleighted when no one is prepared to listen to them any more when they have become generally perceived as untrustworthy or deluded zealots.

      120

      • #
        Jazza

        Yep
        He seems free to spruik on the ABC any time, from what I hear–not that I would bother watching him or SnowCone

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      But he does not have a right to expect that other people have to pay him to exercise that right of free speech.

      That is the key statement about Flannery and anyone like him. But it seems obvious he’s a zealot who believes himself appointed by god to deliver a message to the masses who, to him, are too stupid to get it without his help. This is the real insult in those like Tim Flannery.

      My point in this is simple, he’s abusing his right of free speech. That doesn’t justify taking away that right but it sure does justify ignoring him.

      120

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Tim has done very well financially, and I suspect the $180 grand a year salary was a pittance in comparison to revenue from Toyota, SBS, the History Channel, and many speaking engagements.
      So long as he can keep the inertia in his brand, I am quite sure that this revenue will continue. In fact, now that he can play the victim, and play to the gullible Leftist audience, it might well improve.
      Don’t shed a tear for Tim. This has been far more lucrative than watching tree kangaroos made in PNG. There is far more money in this than there ever was in bones. That, and that alone, is the reason he will not be silenced, until his brand has been completely tarnished. Probably the biggest threat to his brand is a response to Jo Nova’s request.

      80

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    I know you do not need any help with the science end of the discussion but…if you do, I can help in many areas our scientists never looked into for that idiotic algorithm on strictly temperature data based on averaging an orb which is vastly more complex.
    When factoring, density difference of gases and water, different gases on our planet, planetary tilting, rotating sun, our rotating planet, changes of atmospheric density, changes of suns activity, water loss to space, ocean salt and timelines of changes over 4.5 billion years.

    41

    • #
      PaulW

      Just wondering, does the atmospheric tide ever get figured in modelling or is its regular nature and daily cycles too short a frequency to matter.

      00

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Paul,

        Only temperature data is look at.
        ALL other factors are ignored.
        They can “tweak” the data by percentage to whatever they think might adjust the temperature data, like cloud-cover or CO2 or Cow farts…The data does NOT explain ALL the factors that created it.

        00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Jo,

    Thankyou for providing your invitation to Prof. Flannery.

    If he accepts the invitation then he will demonstrate the sincerity of his advocacy of AGW.

    If he does not accept the invitation then he will demonstrate that he fears his advocacy of AGW is incapable of withstanding scrutiny.

    I suspect he will not accept, but I hope he proves my suspicion is wrong.

    Richard

    221

  • #
    Chuck L

    I hear the sound of
    crickets chirping but do not
    hear Prof Flannery.

    81

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      He isn’t going to respond.

      These people are “too good” to respond to anybody considered to be a “denialist,” such invitations usually result in nothing but hoots of forced laughter

      171

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        such invitations usually result in nothing but hoots of forced laughter

        True! And it’s a sad commentary on their character. We really deserve better people in positions of leadership and authority.

        50

  • #
    Andrew

    He would regard it the same as Jooos appearing on a Holocaust denial blog – remember the horror among “progressives” that Abbott666 even MET Lord Monckton?

    50

  • #
    Amr

    Why not set up a tip jar for him and see what he gets for what he writes from your loyal followers

    20

    • #
      Tel

      Bob Murphy’s approach was to start pledges towards some charity… and the pledge only activates if Paul Krugman will debate Murphy.

      Thus, the theory is that everyone who thinks it will never happen should be making big pledges because they know they won’t have to pay :-)

      http://krugmandebate.com/

      Mind you, what happens in these debates is that all parties go home and declare themselves the winner.

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    A very generous offer to be sure and very much in keeping with Jo’s open and transparent way of doing things. But, alas, I think I hear hurried footsteps disappearing into the distance as I’m typing this… …running… …running… …running… …away.

    You in Australia know him better than I do. But he doesn’t strike me as someone who would expose himself to the hard questions. And then there’s the downside to his appearing here as a guest — we would have seen it all before.

    50

  • #
    John Shade

    Well done, Jo. Flannery needs a lot of constructive criticism and guidance if he is to have any hope of making even a token gesture to make partial amends for the losses he has helped inflict on the people of Australia, not least the children upset by fatuous, specious, and irresponsible alarmism.

    60

  • #
    Chuck L

    Jo, I hope that the USA follows suit and starts dismantling the Green Fascism of the Obama Administration but am not optimistic. It took real pain to be felt in your beautiful country before the Australian People rose up and changed the direction of their country. It will likely take the same or a greater amount of inflicted pain here in the USA before it happens but the events in Oz and the genesis of similar events in the EU give hope.

    70

  • #

    Let me paraphrase comments posted on Professor Curry’s blog:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/21/open-thread-weekend-33/#comment-383882

    False pride, fear, greed, & overly-inflated male egos in leaders of the scientific community caused them to drop their most powerful weapon - truth - when confronted by the reincarnated spirit of Stalin in the post-normal (“1984″)of tyrannical human control by deceit.

    The more brave female members of society – Judith Curry, Jo Nove, Jennifer Morrissey and Donna Lafambroise – picked up the weapon of truth to slay the dragon of worldwide tyranny by deceit.

    150

    • #
      JCR

      I’m sure you’re waiting for this – why are you making this a gender issue?

      Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat) – most widely read sceptical blog on the planet
      Steve McIntyre (cllimateaudit) – one of the dismantlers of Michael Mann’s hockey stick
      Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill)- prime chronicler of Climategate
      junkscience
      australianclimatemadness

      What’s important here is the truth – not the gender of the messenger

      70

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        If I may add to your sterling list, Pierre CGosselin at No Tricks Zone.
        Possibly the most underrated skeptic blog in the entire webisphere.

        40

        • #
          ColdinOz

          Yes and if he brings Karoly we will raise Gergis et al

          00

        • #
          ColdinOz

          Yes I’ve got to agree “notrickszone” should be on every sceptics (and warmists) list of sites to visit. Simply to get the information that the warmists love to ignore or to hide. And while you are there buy a COPY OF “The neglected Sun”.

          20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Dr Manuel,
      Is there any aspect of your neutron star theory of the sun that would help predict the sunspot activity and solar wind over the next 22 years?

      As the IPCC consensus crumbles it is going to leave a scientific knowledge vacuum. New hypotheses will be needed.
      Can the neutron star theory help, or else does the the solar magnetic activity depend on a hidden state (hidden by the photosphere) that would operate the same way regardless of whether the core was neutron repulsion or fusion activity?

      I have to wonder how Abdusamatov from the Russian Academy is making his predictions of a reduced solar activity over the next 30 years. Maybe he’s just betting that the late 20th century was an unusual maximum so it is safe to predict it will now be less. Maybe no complex hydrodynamic solar theory is needed, just a simple regression to the mean.

      10

  • #
    J Martin

    A post by Flannery should be good for a laugh.

    30

  • #
    Dan Clancy

    Come on Tim. Come and have a go!

    10

  • #
    Bruce

    Why give Flannery a platform?

    To show what a scientific fool he is?

    We know that.

    He likes publicity, good or bad.

    So why the therapy?

    10

  • #
    Peter Cunningham

    Bob on 21st has it in a nutshell.
    The battle isn’t over, we are still being nibbled to death by ducks.
    I won’t hold my breath for Flannery to honour what his mouth says – he will hang around like a bad smell, and true to form, won’t engage others who happen to have other information or views.
    That speaks volumes for the character of the ‘man’ – He is a puppet in a much larger global game.
    PC

    50

  • #
    Orson

    As with Vice President Al Gore in the US, I don’t thinks it is possible for Tim Flannery to present actual science without political content and the spin of scientism.

    This is very open-minded and generous of you, Joanne. I know this is the right moment for you to do it. But all of it will go wasted – just as the Heartland Institute’s open invite to get Gore to come to its several ‘denier’ conferences has gone wasted.

    30

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    While it would be a nice thing to debate Prof Flannery, since we have so much data he would have difficulty addressing (one has to open one’s eyes to see, after all), it is irrelevant.

    He can talk about green Armageddon all he wants but it will not prevent world temperature from falling for the next decade or so.

    People are not stupid. Global warming does not cause global temperature to fall.

    111

  • #

    Very nice, Jo. If Tim Flannery truly wishes to educate the public, what better way than to do it with evidence. With a safe platform and all your very public assurances, he should be more than happy to step up to the mike and talk heart-to-heart or, rather, mind-to-mind with the sceptical and the undecided.

    Unless, of course, he’s not so sure of that evidence himself, or knows outright that there isn’t any, in which case he will shy away faster than a con-man.

    Hmmm… I’d honestly love it if he gave it his best shot in a presentation, but I have to confess, my money is on him going the other way.

    30

  • #
    Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

    Brava, Jo. One can dream there’s even a chance Mr. Flannery will become convinced there really are a lot more pressing problems we need to address than trying to reduce CO2 emissions.

    50

  • #

    I suggest that Tim Flannery now join in the search for the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), as it would be better suited to his qualifications and training than Climate Science ever was.

    70

  • #
    farmerbraun

    The next twist will be that 15 years is too short a period.
    Hell , we already knew that!
    We’ve been saying that 30 years was too short a period to conclude that warming will continue indefinitely.
    60 years of model calibration is the bare minimum to accommodate the PDO , and preferably 120 years in order to check it.

    So WE HAVEN’T GOT TIME. (to prove it)
    What is wrong with you people? What about the grandchildren?
    Yeah right!

    30

    • #
      Manfred

      It would seem to be one basis for falsification of the null hypothesis of CAGW and possibly AGW, if the statistically insignificant change in temperature continues or indeed shifts to out right cooling as some temperature data sets suggest has already occurred since 2008. I should add that the (draft) AR5 graph of IPCC temperature predictions against empirical data is another one. As the IPCC protagonists are keen to point out, their predictions rely upon a combination of empirical observations and modelled data together with the infinite politicised wisdom of a coterie of highly experienced bona fide climate scientists of which Dr Phil Jones is close to the epicentre. There is a certain (inconvenient) quote one has to hand.

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005

      The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009


      Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.

      17+ years and counting Dr Phil!

      50

  • #
    ianl8888

    Tim Flannery is a good paleogeologist, but he opted for the flashpan of notoriety – this saddens me

    But, those who live by the sword …

    40

  • #
    tom0mason

    Jo, why not set-up a Flannery page at the top of your blog in anticipation of his reply?

    10

  • #
    Case

    Well done Jo. Maybe you should issue a similar invitation to Greg Hunt asking him to provide a post detailing the science behind his “direct action” program and associated schemes to waste taxpayers’ money. He has publicly stated that Australia’s efforts are FUTILE unless the rest of the world follows, but not that they are futile regardless.

    30

    • #
      llew Jones

      Probably more relevant in terms of not throwing good taxpayer’s money after bad.

      Tim is not a climate scientist anyway and generally regarded as bit of a joke as the former government chief “climate change” propagandist. Perhaps he could develop a comedy routine around “the rain that falls will not fill up the dams”.

      10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Flannery knew the Public did not want him, because he knew that he would be shown the door with the election.

    He is brooding, and his tone suggests that he wants retribution for not being given the respect and recognition that he believes he deserves.

    He has earned no respect, and deserves no recognition for anything favourable.

    41

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Good Question for Tim Flannery, but only effective at non scripted and Non Dorothy Dix controlled speaking venues!! anyone in attendance and aware of this invitation to ask Tim is he going to respond to Jo’s invitation and if not why not?, what has he got to hide?, is he scared to engage with sceptics?

    Or I take it that your failure to respond to Jo’s kind invitation to show/demonstrate your knowledge/expertise in Climate Science, is also the reason that you and your fellow ex climate commissioners consistently avoided public debate with sceptical climate scientists?

    Sir you say you will not be silenced, time to stand up and directly engage with sceptics just as Professor Judith Curry did years ago, now when will you take up that invitation?

    I dare say there are others who can formulate short and sharp questions probing his eagerness to put down sceptics as deniers and then refusing to take the opportunity to engage with them! After all, if the science you claim is so strong, then it should be a real walkover to convince us by stating your superior science on the largest sceptical blog in Australia!

    Perhaps we could open an international bet on the outcome – proceeds to charity of choice!

    20

  • #
    J Martin

    Since there is no persuasive or statistically significant evidence that co2 causes global warming, it seems unlikely that Flannery can bring anything new to the table, and so any post he does make will be of previously regurgitated material and readily shredded.

    These goons have had their day and it is time to dump the high priests who think they can control the weather and return to sanity and science.

    30

  • #
    Warwick Hughes

    Jo – I have just updated my 1975-2013 Perth dam catchments rain index -
    Update 39 years of Perth dam catchment rain index 1975-2013

    20

  • #
    Arrant Codger

    So one domino falls but another stays firmly rooted in looney land. I can not believe I have seen no commentary on this piece of drivel published in the Brisbane Times; ‘It would mean an average global emission cut of 50 per cent by mid-century on 1990 levels, and possibly require removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2100.’
    There just may be some unintended consequences!
    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/warming-in-danger-zone-20130920-2u5jx.html#ixzz2fbd2SQIY

    30

  • #
    pat

    during a change of ends at the women’s tennis final in Seoul, i caught Greg Hunt being interviewed on Sky News. he was asked if he saw Judith Curry’s Opinion piece in today’s Australian, to which he replied he had. yet Hunt made no further comment on the article & said the govt would be informed by BoM, CSIRO & other scientific bodies, & that “we believe the science is real” (whatever that means).

    why didn’t he respond that there is concern worldwide about the reliability of the IPCC models, given there has been “no significant increase in global average surface temperature for the past 15-plus years”, which the IPCC models did not predict?

    22 Sept: Australian: Judith Curry: Concsensus distorts the climate picture
    THERE is another, more vexing dilemma facing the IPCC, however. Since the publication of the AR4, nature has thrown the IPCC a curveball: there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature for the past 15-plus years. This has been referred to as a pause or hiatus in global warming…
    Here is the relevant text from the leaked final draft of the AR5 summary for policymakers: “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years….”…
    The politicisation of climate science is another source of bias, including explicit policy advocacy by some IPCC scientists…
    The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate-change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the “consensus to power” approach for decision-making on such complex issues.
    Let’s abandon the scientific consensus-seeking approach in favour of open debate and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues surrounding climate change.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/consensus-distorts-the-climate-picture/story-e6frg6zo-1226724019428#mm-premium

    10

  • #
    Peter Cunningham

    JAZZA asked “God just how stupid did Labor think Australian adults are??!!”
    Answer: VERY STUPID.
    some 46% of Australians voted for more of the last 6 years, so clearly half the population is STUPID! PC

    70

  • #
    pat

    Whoa! not in my name. ***lose the momentum.

    21 Sept: SMH: David Wroe: War footing: Minister eyes next hotspot
    Australia’s new Defence Minister David Johnston says he wants the military to be battle-ready for future conflicts in the unstable Middle East and south Asia, even including the possibility of fresh trouble in Afghanistan.
    Senator Johnston said that after 14 years of involvement in overseas conflicts from East Timor to Afghanistan, the Australian Defence Force had a strong fighting momentum*** that should not be lost…
    ”It will be Pakistan across to Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan,” he said. ”That’s the area where there’ll be instability and that’s the area that we might need to go back into at some point in the future…
    ”Operationally, we’re starting to come down [in Afghanistan] so we’ve got to maintain some interest for the troops. They’ve got to keep training, got to keep a level of readiness.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/war-footing-minister-eyes-next-hotspot-20130920-2u5dm.html

    00

  • #
    A I Adam

    Tim Flannery would be too brave to take up your invitation. I found his “acclaimed” book: Weather Maker bereft of climate science other than rhetorical, anecdotal, clichéd and hearsay gossips and could not write more than a page of relevant critique in my book: New Emperors’ Novel Clothes to be issued by Connor Court/The Publisher’s Apprentice soon. Root of the tragedy lies in the fact that Climate Science has been hijacked by foreigners to Climatology/Meteorology like Flannerys & Hansens.

    20

  • #
    pat

    Arrant Codger -

    your link is Tom Arup yesterday, & here he is today – lengthy, read it all:

    22 Sept: SMH: Tom Arup: Climate report heralds grave fears for state of the planet
    Climate change has been argued about for years, but the latest findings suggest relaxed attitudes towards the phenomenom will result in dangerous consequences for our planet in the very near future.
    Six years on, the fifth report’s core findings remain largely the same, only now there is even greater scientific certainty…
    Scientists who were lead authors on the report gave Fairfax Media a consistent message: the evidence of a warming planet caused by human activity – such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests – is stronger than six years ago…
    CSIRO climate scientist Dr Steve Rintoul, a co-ordinating lead author, says ”what is new is we can be more confident in those results, both in how the climate system has changed up to now and also the human contribution to those changes.”
    Another lead author, Professor Nathan Bindoff, from the University of Tasmania’s Institute for Marine and Antarctica Studies, says the increased confidence is borne from six more years of observations and more refined modelling of several key aspects of the climate system…
    ”Collectively, that is a lot more evidence than we have had before. It is the comprehensive nature of it.”…
    Despite the increase in confidence, a significant part of public debate has focused on a slowing during the past 15 years in what had in previous decades been the dramatic pace of global warming – and whether that slowdown has implications for the long-term rise in temperature.
    Climate sceptics have seized on the slowing to declare warming has paused or stopped, and suggest the danger of letting emissions continue to skyrocket has been exaggerated.
    A final draft of the report, seen by Fairfax Media, says the rate of warming across the planet’s surface in the past 15 years was about 0.05 degrees a decade – slower than the longer-term warming trend of 0.12 degrees since 1951.
    But it does not say warming has reversed. ”Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest,” the draft report says. The data underpinning the report suggests 12 of the hottest years in modern times have been this century.
    Another key area of conjecture is what is known as ”climate sensitivity”: the expected warming that would come from doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The 2007 report projected that this would increase temperatures by between 2 degrees and 4.5 degrees. Drafts of the new report drop the lower end of that range to 1.5 degrees, but maintain the 4.5 degrees high end…
    The Australian, in a story quoting the British tabloid The Daily Mail, last week reported the debate over climate sensitivity under the headline: ”We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC”.
    But both papers misquoted the last IPCC report, almost doubling its assessment of the observed long-term warming rate and making the comparison with the current report look more stark than it is.
    But the pace of warming for the 15 years between 1997 and 2012 has been slower than some of the modelling projections in the 2007 report, which reported a 0.2-degree-a-decade warming rate from 2005 to 2025.
    The authors of the 2013 report say the recent slowdown in warming is not significant, that it’s the long-term trend that matters…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-
    report-heralds-grave-fears-for-state-of-the-planet-20130921-2u6fk.html

    20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Well, I’m off to bed. But after reading Pat’s reprise of what the “climate scientists” are saying, I can’t help but have a shot at predicting the headline in the SMH and elsewhere in FauFax – and on the ABC, when this entirely political IPCC “Report” finally gets released:

      Absolutely Nothing Has Actually Happened – And It’s Even Worse Than We First Thought

      30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Actually, pat (and Rereke if he sees this), I have an OSINT question for you.
      When you read a story like this: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/22/325379/israeli-forces-enter-nairobi-mall/
      Then read basically the same story here: http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=326758
      How do you know if PressTV was the original source of the AFP wire story, or if AFP was the source of the PressTV article?
      I know the story is somebody’s propaganda, I just can’t figure out whose propaganda it is.
      I doubt the Jerusalem Post would repeat Iranian propaganda so perhaps some unnamed source made the AFP article reprinted by both PressTV and JP?? Do you have any rules of thumb about this?

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        JPost says

        The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the veracity of the report.

        PressTV

        “The Israelis have just entered and they are rescuing the hostages and the injured,” media outlets quoted an unnamed senior Kenyan security source as saying.

        Ergo, Both reports are bullshit, at least at time of print.

        BTW why would you think this would be Iranian propaganda?

        Cheers

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well, I could tell you how it all works, but then I would have to … :-)

        It was not propaganda. But neither of these is the original source. The actual incident took place on 21st, the two news reports you mentioned were dated 22nd.

        In this case, Reuters (or their stringers – in country independent journalists and photographers that are paid by the job), plus a couple of freelance photographers were the first onto the story. Reuters put it on the wire, and it was picked up immediately by Al Jazeera, who were the first to publish. Presumably PressTV and the Jerusalem Post both picked it up from Al Jazeera.

        We noted the Reuters report, and filed it.

        If you are interested, you can look at the initial Al Jazeera article here.

        Crakar: Andrew’s mention of Iran is based on the fact that PressTV has an IR country code.

        10

  • #
    pat

    23 Sept: Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt: Tim Flannery has been sacked – and so too should journalists who are climate change scaremongers
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/tim-flannery-has-been-sacked-8212-and-so-too-should-journalists-who-are-climate-change-scaremongers/story-fni0ffxg-1226724721844

    30

  • #
    linda

    Jo
    You have withstood and highlighted a great many subjects that good hard working Australians have been spoon fed over many years.
    Slowly as many families are being made criminals by simply providing homes and food for security and prosperity, farms foreclosed , heavy fines for removing something that can regrow, and excessive rates for climate change claims.

    Don’t forget local shire elections are coming up in WA, read the profiles for councillors wanting your vote, you will be very surprised how many are standing on the grounds of climate change and environmental importance, instead of ratepayers and businesses that provide a large proportion of funds through rates.

    Cheers Jo for a great site.

    40

  • #
    Tim

    We’re reaching the point where the climate predictions have been around long enough (I would say around 33 years) to allow for significant comparison against the actual data – and we are now able to say definitively that the predictions were totally exaggerated.

    Yet Tim Flannery, a scientist, continues the meme. Anyone would have to wonder just what drives his weird, manifestly failed predictions and his continuing allegiance to this bizarre politically-constructed belief system.

    Not just money, surely.

    30

  • #
    janama

    Tim Flannery completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English at La Trobe University in 1977, and then took a change of direction to complete a Master of Science degree in Earth Science at Monash University in 1981. In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods (kangaroos).

    Roy Spencer has a B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982. and is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center

    Now which of these scientists would you believe when it comes the climate science?

    50

    • #

      In the same vane you could ask who you believe on the Yamal tree-ring chronology? Professor Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s leading experts on dendroclimatology, or blogger and (semi-)retired mining consultant Steve McIntyre. I would go for the latter, as McIntyre analyzes the data, presents the results clearly and enables others to replicate the results.

      In a debate, if you want to judge who has the better argument, then I believe you should look at the arguments presented rather than the list of credentials.
      If I want to hire a plumber, or electrician I go off the recommendation of friends who I trust rather than the trade associations and qualifications.
      It is the same for choosing a surgeon, lawyer or pension fund.

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It is the same for choosing a surgeon, lawyer or pension fund.

        I would prefer to avoid all three, thank you.

        10

  • #
    ATheoK

    Quite professional Jo! I hope Flannery and perhaps others will take up your gauntlet.

    As with any challenge, it is perhaps best to keep a bit of score on points claimed and points rebutted; with notes regarding falsified research still getting presented as evidence or when the points made are pure emotive versus cold hard science.

    I’ll gladly read the papers posted. If there happens to be a side pool about who is winning would be nice, all profits to the Jo Nova & family blog of course. That way we’re not really gambling, just having fun while funding Jo’s site! :->

    20

  • #
    Bruce

    And in breaking news.
    The Manly ferry just pulled up and is tied to the roof of circular quay. Passengers are upset at being forced to swim from the boat to the train platform.
    ‘Well he did say the ocean was going to rise by a few metres’

    [This is off topic - save the thought for an unthreaded weekend -Fly]

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Been away for awhile and just checked in and saw this thread and thought wow finally someone who believes in climate change and who can speak with some authority is up for a debate……………sadly after searching through the 171 comments i cannot see his name.

    I did see a “Tim” but he seemed to be arguing in the opposite so unless Flannery is blogging incognito is it safe to say he was a no show?

    32

    • #
      Tim

      I’m definitely not Tim Flannery.

      The only disinformation I spread is to my wife re my ETA at home from the club.

      20

      • #
        crakar24

        No worries Tim, by the way its not disinformation its tactical subterfuge.

        You would think my comment above would get through my red thumbed stalker but no even an honest statement of fact (Tim Flappery being a no show) still raises a red flag, or maybe they just felt a little bit insulted when i proclaimed we finally will get a believer with credibility and i did not mean them? Actually this was a cheap shot at Flannery himself but alas warmbots are not known for their intelligence, collectively or in isolation.

        21

  • #
    Raven

    I had some really nice pigs to sell ……but they flew away .

    00

  • #
    Lawrence Cooper

    Inspired. Simply inspired commentary – but will Flannery take the bait? I think not. These types never engage in a free and open debate, because it wouldn’t be “fair” to them. Afterall they’d eb engaging in battle of wits only half armed.

    10

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    While the invitation is most gracious, I suspect he will turn up at SkS before here. Still, if he is really without a job, he can do what you did. Start his own blog.

    00

  • #
    A I Adam

    THE CLIMATE EMPERORS HAVE NOTHING ON!
    Only two & a half weeks to go – my book: “New Emperors Novel Clothes” is going to be published by Connor Court/The Publisher’s Apprentice on 14th October. Climate Change is not about climate (science). My book explores what it is about and presents a lawyer’s brief to the Jury, you, the people, to give your verdict.
    Climate science has been hijacked by foreigners to Climatology/Meteorology like Flannerys and Hansens. They are barking up the wrong tree. You will know all about it in three weeks time.

    20

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    Flannery is not without a job; he’s done his snow-job and it will continue. Join some dots: Flannery – WWF witnesses – Steffen – John Church (sea-level rise preacher); Lesley Hughes (biodiversity); professor-of-everything-provided-its-hot Karoly; Bureau of Meteorology; IPCC – Copenhagen ….. Ask Flannery about Robert Purves and Peter Cosier. From well-behind the lines, it is Purves and Cosier who run the show; and it will be Purves’ Environmental Trust that will continue to support Flannery. Purves is WWF (Australia)’s president; his schemes have been elaborate. It is Purves/Cosier behind the Wentworth Group; activists like Anna Rose and Simon Sheikh (GetUp!)(think Greens ACT); it is they behind Oz vegetation reforms; the Murray-Darling plan; the carbon tax. Ask him about those; then ask him for an essay on democracy.

    Cheers,

    Bill

    00

  • #
    Ron Cook

    Hi Jo,

    I’ve only just found and read your “Skeptics Handbook”. I’m an Industrial Chemist with some 50 years of experience in Analytical Chemistry and research, first in plastics then in precious metals. When I became aware of the push towards an AGW I was a little skeptical and being a scientist decided to look into the matter. Now I’m a total skeptic. I did some casual linking between sun spot activity (as a result of my Ham Radio hobby) and recorded droughts in Australia and found there to be a close correlation. I’m convinced that it’s the sun that drives the global climate NOT Carbon Dioxide. My concern is that ‘anti-skeptic’ (ie pro CO2 warming) information rules the media and hence the populace-at-large. How can any of us get ‘a hearing’ in such a biased environment. I do most of my campaigning via Facebook but find I’m losing friends very quickly because they think that I’m some kind of radical “nut”.
    Cheers
    Ron Cook (no relation to John Cook)

    [Welcome Ron, Rest assured you have many people viewing this blog that won't think you are a radical nut! Feel free to post additional comments. You'll find the most recent topics here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/ and here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/seeking-stories-from-schools-and-the-new-curriculum/ ] ED

    20

    • #

      Glad you could visit Ron. Despite the media blitz, word still gets out. There are more skeptics around every day, and it’s a one way street. The flow is all our way. You seem to have a very good grip… sorry to hear about the “friends”. It is difficult. I do sympathize. I’ve made brilliant new friends around here.

      10