Oz report – Footy at least has rules

The Tuesday night meeting in Brisbane on the WUWT Australian tour had a bit of unexpected fireworks courtesy of Aussie reef scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. The meeting started off with some protestors outside holding placards with the tired old messages claiming “funding by big oil”…etc. Professor Ove actually incited this on his blog, saying that “The Climate Shifts crew and other scientists will be there en masse to record and debunk the lies that will be told.”

The “en masse” was about 5, maybe 6 people by my count. Ove is the one at right below.

image

Andrew Bolt (left), Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (right)

I’ve never met Dr Ove, never corresponded with him, and after watching his behavior firsthand, I’m not sure I would have wanted to. His behavior left me with the impression that he was the antithesis of a professional person. At least the lady from Oxfam and the fellow in the green shirt who came up to me afterwards had manners, even though they disagreed with me, and I thank them for that. Ove never made the effort to say hello.

Andrew Bolt and his readers explain it far better than I could:

============================================

From Andrew Bolt’s blog:

Matt Ridley has his book The Rational Optimist fact-checked by five warmist scientists, including our own alarmist, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. Conclusion:

After reading their critiques, I stand even more firmly behind my conclusion that the threats to coral reefs from both man-made warming and ocean acidification are unlikely to be severe, rapid or urgent.

He explains why. And then starts fact-checking Hoegh-Guldberg instead…

(Thanks to reader Brady.)

UPDATE

Reader Brendan reports from the lecture tour of Watts Up With That’s Anthony Watts (dates and cities here):

Your mate Ove Hoegh-Guldberg turned up with an acolyte/personal photographer at Anthony Watts’ talk in Brisbane tonight.  He didn’t actually ask Anthony any questions and seemed only interested in hijacking the Q&A at the end to snipe at Bob Carter.  This included calling Prof. Carter “crazy” at one point for questioning the IPCC consensus and also refusing to return the microphone to one of the helpers.

While Prof Carter maintained a disciplined, academic tone it seemed David Archibald had other ideas.  When answering a question about who was making money from climate change Archibald alluded to certain members of the audience getting millions of dollars to conduct “stupid” research on the reef.  However, the high ground yielded by Archibald with this comment was quickly regained when Ove then dramatically sprung to his feet and shouted to the audience how he was the butt of the slight.

Reader BcuBed adds:

Andrew,

The … professor tried to commandeer the WUWT Seminar in Brisbane last night. I think he even mentioned you. My wife summed him up pretty well – “Who is that arrogant a/hole”.

Despite Bob Carter giving him three minutes of stage time he still continued to push his way into the thread of the meeting, much to the disgust of one of the audience who chimed in with “I did not travel for three hours to hear you, so sit down”.

These holier than thou academic types never seem to get it and then they wonder why they are losing public confidence. The “Trust me I’m a doctor (or professor)” mentality and “I know better than you” just does not wash with the average person.

The presentations by Anthony Watts and David Archibald were well-received by the audience and Bob Carter did a great job chairing and summing up the evening. Well worth the effort of going along and helped to confirm my view of what a d… the reefman is.

For my debate with Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, click on the second item on the Index at this ABC site.

====================================================

The odd thing is, if Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg had simply asked at the start to make a statement (like a professional scientist normally would) Professor Carter (who chaired the meeting) would have gladly done so and I would have given my approval as well, even though he has called both myself and Dr. Carter “liars” in advance. He hadn’t even seen the presentation. His conduct and constant hijacking of the microphone finally irritated me enough to shout out “Hey, go rent your own hall!”.  Ove ignored me and kept on.

This head butting really doesn’t accomplish anything, and looks bad for professional science, unless of course you are playing “State of Origin” footy, in which case Ove-like antics seem to be the strategy.

By the way, QLD thrashed NSW 34-6, with NSW only making a goal in the 79th minute last night. My first introduction to AU footy was like watching the Superbowl in the states, and I thank my hosts sincerely for setting me up with good company with which to expose me to the sport in style. After watching Ove, I noted that the footy at least had basic rules of conduct I could follow, they even put one fellow on report with possibly suspension, for bad behavior.

The physical rough and tumble footy match gave me a far better impression of Australia than Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s rough and tumble did.

- Anthony

About these ads

82 thoughts on “Oz report – Footy at least has rules

  1. I’ve had the (dis)pleasure of tangling with O H-G at Andrew Bolts blog earlier this year.
    The man has known nothing but government grant employment all his adult life. The AGW scare has been a gold mine for him and his fellows at the Great Barrier Reef authority. No wonder he is passionately protecting his self interest.

    p.s. Ove is easy to debate. He has older peer reviewed papers contradicting his current stance on coral bleaching due to 0.1DegC per decade temp increase. Quote these papers to him and he runs away like the coward that he is.

  2. This man has, by this boorish behaviour, no doubt done his “cause” more harm than good.

    My very sincere thanks, Anthony, and also to David Archibald and Bob Carter, for your superb efforts to educate the populace, and for the impact you are no doubt having.

    I’m glad you enjoyed the footy, and sorry you weren’t able to see a slightly more closely matched game.

  3. ♫♫♫
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Way up high,
    There’s a land that I heard of
    Once in a lullaby…♫♫♫

    So you went over the rainbow….
    to meet those day-dreaming global warming guys

  4. I was there on Tuesday.

    Ove was very passionate and clearly believed deeply in what he was saying/doing.

    When given 3 minues to talk be basically said AGW is happening because all scientists say so and that AGW is right because the IPCC says so, as if that would have been new to the audience. Anthony on the other hand had presented a talk with data, observations and a reasoned argument.

    I’d like to see Ove debate with Bob Carter and Anthony when he has had time to prepare a reasonable presentation with the emotion removed and the reason injected.

    I thought that Bob Carter (the chairman that evening) handled it very well and on balance it was good to give Ove 3 minutes to talk,

  5. Anthony, good tip for microphones handed out to audiences, keep a volume control handy. If you can patch in some birds tweeting, even better.

  6. Hope your having lots of fun Anthony while we suffer through all of these long days without you at the controls! Aye mate? :0)

  7. I see that Steve Milloy (JunkScience.com) was nice enough to send them a T-shirt. I have one just like it. I don’t think they got the message.

  8. Aussie reef scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is one of those people who, if they didn’t already exist, you would have to invent. People are stranger than fiction.

  9. As an Aussie, that interview was almost too embarrassing to watch.

    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg appeared to be your typical, alarmist cherry-picker who wanted to stress one particular point (arctic ice reduction), ignore the antarctic increase but still make comments that the interviewer was not looking at things globally when it suited his (Ove’s) purpose.

    He also claims that people are not looking at long enough timescales then produces a temperature graph of only 150 years or so. It was only 6-12,000 years ago that the Great Lakes of North America were formed BY GLACIERS so, personally, I’m extremely pleased that the Earth has warmed up a little since then.

  10. I actually rather like that T-shirt. It’s “non-denominational”, so to speak. Skeptic and true believer alike can both wear it.

  11. “stevengoddard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Australia had the bad luck of drawing Germany for their first match in South Africa.”

    We got lucky. Ballack and 4 or 5 other top players all fell ill or got injured before the World Cup. Nobody expected the team to be that successful.

    Sorry, Ossies.

  12. Yes, but he is Australian! I mean, they are very brash, curt, sometimes rude – and say it like it is. Some actually like that, as you know where you stand. Personally I don’t, as there’s no need to be rude. But having met lots of Australians I’m in no wonder that you can very easily end up in a bar-fight there for just disagreeing with someone’s viewpoint! Unfortunately they can’t moderate their tone of language. English Formula 1 racer, Lewis Hamilton, was recently called a [snip] by an Australian government minister! They seem to think this is acceptable language, but to us it comes across as boorish and ill-mannered. And even saying that you get called a snob.

  13. “”” stevengoddard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Australia had the bad luck of drawing Germany for their first match in South Africa. “””

    Well ‘scuse me; but that namby pamby thing they are playing in South Africa hardly qualifies as “Footy.”

    I thought that Anthony was referring to “Footy” otherwise known as “Australian Rules”.

    Now that really is football.

    Of course American “Football” should be called handball; because you never actually put foot to ball, until you have failed to advance ten yards, in which case you try to kick the ball out over the side line; way up field; and of course you failat that so somebody catches it and runs it back for a TD; talk about dumb; allowing a run back.

    So every colelge and professional NFL coach should be made to watch that silly whirled cup thing; to disabuse himself of the notion that soccer players can actually kick the ball. Even with a round ball, it goes ove the net; round the net; anywhere but in the net.
    Then those coahces would go looking for Rugby fullbacks to kick the ball for them or even betetr get some Aussie “Footy” players. Every single chap on the field; with the exception of the referee, is allowed to kick the ball; any time he wants to in real “Footy”.

    Too bad you had to watch that SA farce; even in the opening game against Mexico; SA got handed a draw; by disallowing a first half Mexico goal on a botched offside call. Well the frogs don’t allow instant replay in their FIFA excuse for “Footy.”

  14. Anthony,

    You should also take time for a trip to the MCG in Melbourne to watch an AFL game so that you can appreciate the diversity of our football codes in this country. I trust your hosts in Melbourne can arrange for that to happen.

    In response to John Trigge. John, Ove also came out with the 150 year timeframe at the Brisbane meeting, which to those of us in the audience with a true geological background was just another example of the lack of understanding of a marine biologist for real earth history as you rightly point out.

  15. George Smith – I think he’s talking about State of Origin, in which of course, scoring is called a try not a goal and which definitely has nothing to do with soccer ( english – football).

    Anthony – this Saturday night is a good one for Rugby with New Zealands All Blacks playing the Welsh national team. If you can catch it you can get really confused as that is Rugby not to be confused with Rugby League, which shouldn’t be confused with Australian Rules which shouldn’t be confused with Football. :)

    Ghost of Jim C – Yes we Aussies and Kiwis can come across as abrupt to other cultures but of course thats what makes our culture different ( and Aussies are way ruder than Kiwis :)) however in regards to Louis Hamilton I believe it was when he was busted by Police doing donuts on a public street in his Mercedes sportster – definitely a dickhead IMO.

  16. anthony,
    glad u got to see australia’s greatest rugby league footballer of all time, darren lockyer, captain of queensland.
    also wish i could have attended your event, but u didn’t visit my little town. i was there in spirit though.
    it’s good ove attended – nothing like getting up close and personal to discover how zealous he is.
    best wishes for the rest of the tour.

  17. “stevengoddard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Charles and Steven Mosher are doing a fantastic job, while Anthony is away.”

    You as well; i love your animations!

  18. My family and I enjoyed the presentation in Brisbane enormously – it was great to meet Anthony and have a chat (though the terrible acoustics of the hall made it difficult).
    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg was truly obnoxious, and while I expected no less of him, it was a real eye-opener for my wife and son to see just how flimsy their whole case is, and how reliant on the standard rhetoric of the quoting the IPCC as some infallible source.
    And for a man who has a uncommon name in this country to get all huffy and offended when someone mispronounced his name just reveals the type of person he is.
    Kudos to Anthony and Bob Carter for the way they handled it with grace and dignity.
    Any other Aussies on the blog, make sure you see Anthony while he is here. Highly recommended.

  19. I had a Australian friend cover my back as we punched our way out of a barfight between Cowboys and Bikers in Richland, wa. of all places. Handy, Mate..
    I bet you have all those Oil company checks in your swiss bank account as I do mine from the Nuclear industry that I was accused of by a local greenie and my “Split
    Atoms not Birds…” remark concerning my opposition to Wind turbines….

  20. Auckland would have been a good place to come and speak too, straight across the bridge from Sydney (well, seems like that once you’ve flown to Oz from the States!).

  21. ghost of big Jim, stop being a pompous [snip] there was no reason to turn this into a racist attack on Aussies.

  22. stevengoddard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Charles and Steven Mosher are doing a fantastic job, while Anthony is away.
    _______
    Of course they are, didn’t mean or say the negative. (But Steve, without feeling needed Anthony might find wrestling crocodiles is just his cup-of-tea and stick, Anthony-Dundee style! We need him here wrestling something more useful like trolls. :) )

  23. From over here in UKland sounds like it’s a great trip.

    But watt will happen if Oz and USA meet in the 2nd round…?

  24. Mr. Watts,
    I support your efforts and have done for a long time; but I would make a comment about Andrew Bolt.
    If you’re serious about influencing public opinion in Australia, I wouldn’t lean too heavily on Andrew Bolt. I lived there for 18 years until recently; Andrew has a deservedly bad reputation as something of a tabloid ‘shockjock’ who will pretty much say anything to sell his newspaper column (and now his radio show). He comes across very polite and well-mannered, but he says some deeply unpleasant things sometimes – racism, personal insults, scientifically uninformed comments, and so on.
    Foolish squabbles of the sort you’ve just experienced seem to follow Andrew around for that very reason.
    He has a ‘fan club’ in Australia, but if you let yourself be seen as one of Andrew’s ‘experts’, you’re likely to alienate mainstream Australian opinion, without Aussies even making the effort to familiarise themselves with your excellent work.

  25. It has become a standard commentary to blame “big oil” funding the skeptics to AGW. It just shows the closed mind of those “scientists”. They have not read the CRU website, the involvement of BP President in the cover up of Climategate, the CRU emails how to big oil is funding AGW, etc. On the otherhand to replace the server at Climatre Audit, Steve M has to pass the hat, has practically work on his own, — but then big oil is behind it.
    Lets face it, corals forms calcium carbonate from bicarbonates in the sea water and in so doing emits carbon dioxide, acidifying their immediate environment. It is the biota with cholorophyll who remove the carbon dioxide emitted by the corals.

  26. On the way to work today in Melbourne a big black automobile jumped into the green-paved bike lane for a quick escape left turn out of the traffic jam – I had to break pretty hard. I tapped the side of his car as I wobbled past in the gutter. Next I know he is there in front of me again, 400 m down the road, out of his car and wildly fingering my nose. I heard later that he had let off on his turn, raced through the changing lights, terrified fellow cyclists to tear down the bike lane, back into the main lanes, and up in front of me. ‘Dont touch my car! Greenie scum.’ Cyclist stop behind taking his number while a big black SUV pulls up beside calling camly and firmly ‘Get back in your car mate, get back in your car.’ I wondered guiltly as the gathered cyclists conforting me afterwards whether any of them will be demonstrating outside Anthony’s talk next week. These days you just never know who’s ya mate.

  27. I was staying about three blocks from Buckingham Palace in November, 2003 when GWB was there. The American press reported mass demonstrations outside the palace, when in fact there were less than half a dozen docile people standing around holding signs.

    The US press impressed upon me that week that nothing they say is to be trusted. In fact, the big news that week was that England beat Australia in the Rugby World Cup. Over half a million people lined Whitehall to celebrate their return.

  28. That’s the thing about being funded under an alarmist government: you can be as rude and stupid as you like as long as you push the agenda.

    Looking forward to seeing you in Adelaide. I hope there’s no “Oves” here.

  29. Hope Anthony has the moxie to conduct a parting press conference on the ROOF of the Regional Office in Brisbane. That’s where the official station for that city was located, before being moved to Eagle Farm Airport.

  30. Chris Watson is entitled to his opinion re Bolt, but many of us in this soon to-be-destroyed-by-socialism country regard him as one of the few shining lights speaking truth. He is spot on on the global warming scam, and has been for a long while.

    By the way, football is Australian Rules here, not kiss-and-cuddle (rugby), or that 11 man thing where the main talent appears to be acting.

    Cheers!

    John

  31. “”” singularian says:
    June 16, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    George Smith – I think he’s talking about State of Origin, in which of course, scoring is called a try not a goal and which definitely has nothing to do with soccer ( english – football).

    Anthony – this Saturday night is a good one for Rugby with New Zealands All Blacks playing the Welsh national team. If you can catch it you can get really confused as that is Rugby not to be confused with Rugby League, which shouldn’t be confused with Australian Rules which shouldn’t be confused with Football. :)

    Ghost of Jim C – Yes we Aussies and Kiwis can come across as abrupt to other cultures but of course thats what makes our culture different ( and Aussies are way ruder than Kiwis :)) however in regards to Louis Hamilton I believe it was when he was busted by Police doing donuts on a public street in his Mercedes sportster – definitely a dickhead IMO. “””

    Well I have no idea what that was all about; I don’t remember saying anything about trys.

    But ‘ang on there a moment old chap; if the All Blacks are going to play the Welsh National Team; we want an extra referee, and instant replay. Last time the All Blacks played the Welsh in Cardiff in 1905, our Charlie Deans scored a try; which would have given the game to the undefeated 1905 All Blacks; so the stupid blind referee said it wasn’t a try; which gave the game (free gift) to the Welsh; who sure as hell can sing; but can’t play rugby for beans.

    So we are still pissed off at being stiffed over there in Cardiff. Hasn’t been near as much ruckus since; well except for the Scoreless Draw in Wellington in 1936 between the All Blacks and the Springboks; that was the Dr Danie Craven Springboks; and they weren’t half bad at Rugby themselves. They can’t play soccer for beans; but who cares about that genteel game.

    So get that extra referee and instant replay; we don’t want any 1905 rip-offs again.

    Mind you as I recall in 1905, our All Blacks were a little bit put off by those damn Welsh singers singing that there “Dear Land of My Fathers” thing; kind of put the kibosh on the Maori Haka; and sort of wrecked the Kiwi composure; so maybe on the day; those Welsh chaps really played the better game, and maybe deserved the win; but old Charlie really did score that try; I even remember watching the TV reruns of the game.

  32. Chris Watson this is a totally incorrect and vicious spray from you to Andrew Bolt who is a highly respected columnist in Australia who calls it like it is. Moderators I take exception to you allowing this person to use the WUWT site under the guise of supporting and “warning” Anthony, to attack a professional journalist and broadcaster in another country who is doing a great job. If Chris Watson wants to spray Andrew Bolt he can quite easily go to Bolt’s blog at any time. Bolt’s blog is the most popular one in Australia, with millions of hits yearly, and anyone, including you, Mr Watson, can have their say there, there is no need to pollute here with your nastiness, lies and racist comments about Bolt.

  33. “xyzlatin says:
    June 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm
    Chris Watson this is a totally incorrect and vicious spray from you to Andrew Bolt who is a highly respected ,…”

    I agree xyzlatin. These are odd observations by Chris Watson and have an faint odour of Trollmeat in their formation.
    Andrew is passionate and does occasionally advocate things that I do not agree with. He is, however, a very important participant in the public debate on many things including climate change and is usually proved correct over time. His latest punt on KRudd losing office within ~1 month is yet to play out yet,..

  34. Mr Chris Watson,
    how patronizing of you to ‘warn’ Anthony about Andrew Bolt. I’m sure Anthony is big & smart enough to do his research, even more so in the internet age.
    As for this “but he says some deeply unpleasant things sometimes – racism, personal insults, scientifically uninformed comments, and so on.”
    I suspect that you choose to believe this for your own agenda, as a proper reading of his columns reveals a man who is decidedly not racist. Once again people confuse racism with culture; for it is essentially cultural issues that Bolt supposedly makes ‘unpleasant’ comments upon. I and millions of other readers of his blog simply see him speaking the bl*@dy obvious truth.
    In fact it IS mainstream Australia that reads his opinions.
    Good heavens, imagine somebody saying something ‘deeply unpleasant’ that might be true.

  35. Racism

    That charge has been made so many times, and so lightly, nobody is listening any more.
    Andrew Bolt is not racist, and Chris Watson’s post was not racist, just nasty.

    At least it seems to be that Ove passionately believes in AGW, as does Hansen, both fanatics, who should not be listened to because of their fanaticism.

    The ones I despise are the ones cynically exploiting the public, neither knowing or caring whether AGW exists or what impact their exploitation has on people.

  36. George E. Smith says:
    June 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Mind you as I recall in 1905, our All Blacks were a little bit put off by those damn Welsh singers singing that there “Dear Land of My Fathers” thing; kind of put the kibosh on the Maori Haka; and sort of wrecked the Kiwi composure; so maybe on the day; those Welsh chaps really played the better game, and maybe deserved the win; but old Charlie really did score that try; I even remember watching the TV reruns of the game.

    That was funny Mr Smith, I spilled my coffee. I might wear a dribble bib next time.

    Chris Watson says:
    June 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    You are most certainly entitled to your opinion Watson.

    My opinion is that you’re a troll and way off the mark in your analysis.

    And how presumptous of you to think you can advise Watts. Richard Cranium comes to mind.

  37. Hey Anthony, I see you calling Bob Carter by his academic title (Professor Carter or Dr Carter). Can you extend the courtesy and call Ove Hoegh-Guldberg the same (Professor Hoegh-Guldberg or Dr Hoegh-Guldberg) instead of Mr Hoegh-Guldberg? It comes across a little petty the way it reads at the moment. Thanks, Thomas

    [Fixed, thanx. Hurried writing. ~dbs, mod.]

  38. @ George E Smith…. 1905, as in A.D.? TV reruns from a game in 1905? *shakes head, looks a calendar…* hmmmm…..

  39. Gentlemen, I’m really not a troll. I’ve been a reader of Anthony Watts’ blog for several years now; although I seldom comment as the scientific standard of the comments is pretty high and I’ve had nothing to add.

    And I have in fact visited Andrew Bolt’s blog innumerable times. He is right on global warming and some other fairly mainstream conservative issues; but via his comments section he’s also host to literally hundreds of the most outrageous racists; he himself has called – albeit in his mild-mannered way – for BNF type policies towards Muslims and other migrant groups.

    I’ve noticed Anthony Watts is rightly careful not to associate himself too closely with American shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck – or any other political commentators for that matter. These guys are what they are. Sometimes they report fairly, but they’re just entertainers, and they are prone to nastiness and misinformation – more to sell their shows than anything else. It’s very smart to keep a certain distance from media figures like this. A serious scientific debate is not a priority for any of them on any side of politics.

    The same caution ought to be observed with Andrew Bolt. He really isn’t mainstream by any means – I lived in Victoria a long time – and if you want to reach mainstream Aussies (a much more moderate society than America, incidentally), Andrew Bolt is unlikely to be the one to get you there. Although he’s sure to raise a ruckus and sell plenty of papers.

    And gentlemen, I suggest the very harshness of your comments, and their political edge, is evidence, I think, that I’m telling the truth.

  40. Interesting post and comments. I am writing in to identify myself as the guy in the green shirt. (I am a prof of marine ecology at UNC Chapel Hill, NC, USA, http://www.brunolab.net).

    Like I told Anthony, in person he was very calm and pleasant in his talk. A nice change. I don’t agree at all with his broader views about the patterns and causes of climate change, but I really got a kick out of his slide show of poorly (to put it lightly) placed weather stations. A very funny yet sad commentary on something-not sure what.

    I am also a big supporter (and consumer) of the type of citizen-science that Anthony has been doing and promoting (and I don’t mean that in a critical way). A fair amount of the work I do relies on data from citizen volunteers that do coral reef surveys, e.g., ReefCheck.

    All that said, it wasn’t exactly a balanced presentation of the evidence at hand for the audience to evaluate (although I understand it wasn’t meant to be), given three well-known AGW skeptics had nearly two hours on stage with well over a hundred slides while Ove only had a few minutes and a microphone. It isn’t as if he could have outlined the evidence in that time and wasn’t given a chance to show slides, data, etc.

    I also don’t think these on stage debates are getting us anywhere. There just isn’t time or an opportunity to present evidence in a deep and understandable way.

    I think a more meaningful forum would be to have two presenters have 30 minutes, or whatever, to present their case. Or two teams of two. Anthony, perhaps Ove and I could do this with you and Bob in the coming weeks? We could come to where you are for your tour at our own cost, have some dinner so we all get to know each other as people, then go have a nice chat with the audience?

    I wanted to close by urging Anthony and his readers to try to keep an open mind about this broader debate. Anthony seems to me to be truly (or largely) open to the evidence, and there are a few great sites where you can go and evaluate the evidence in its entirety, e.g., http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php, http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, http://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/hot-questions-about-climate-change, http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_observing.html

    And try to get out to the GBR while you are here!

    Cheers,

    JB

  41. Chris Watson, if Andrew Bolt was anything like how you picture him, no one would read his work. I suggest you need to reassess your point of view as it shows some obvious biases. More people read Bolt’s blog than most Australian newspapers. He would also not be on TV and Radio either. There are extremes of comments on all political sides on his blog, but for extreme comments, you need to see some of the bile from leftist bloggers who I wont name here but we all know who they are. You might even need to get out of Victoria into the real world for a change.

  42. John Bruno, as Anthony pointed out to Ove, rent your own hall. If I want to hear from Ove , I would look for an event where he is speaking. As it is we can easily read his papers and choose whether to believe or not his theories, but to interrupt in the way he did is rude and enough to make me wary of his work. I would sooner believe people whose livelihood depends on climate and weather, as they live their work, day and night in the field, and notice subtle changes, not a scientist who depends on Government grants, and crunches numbers in a city or town lab. You are free to organize your own tour like this or the earlier Monckton visit, I am sure you some people will turn up to ask questions even, and I bet they won’t be rude. Anthony is the one with the broader mind. His site has debated the evidence in its entirety for several years now, as you don’t seem to have noticed.


  43. REPLY: to John Bruno

    Hello John, thank you for commenting. I didn’t name you because I wasn’t sure you wanted to be. I think that if Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg would make a public apology on his blog for publicly calling Dr. Carter and myself “liars” in advance of ever meeting me, or ever seeing what I had to present before making that ugly accusation, I would then be open to a debate as you propose. I present the evidence as I see it, and I find it offensive that Dr. Hoegh-Guldberg didn’t even wait to see what I had to say before stating his opinion. That seems to me to be an unscientific response. That issue needs to be cleared as a professional courtesy.

    I can’t speak for Mr. Archibald or Dr. Carter at the moment, but I’ll relay the idea to them.

    Other than that, my only requirement would be that whatever stage is chosen, that it have a hearing assistance system for my use. Between bad acoustics and regional accents I’m not yet tuned into, it is a huge disadvantage for me with my hearing loss.

    – Anthony Watts

  44. I was at the Brisbane meeting, I had the great pleasure of saying hello to Anthony and hearing his talk, and I can confirm everything Anthony has said above.

    At the first when Ove started talking I didn’t know who he was, but his voice was laden with condescension and contempt and even before I caught the gist of his comments I wondered who that rude individual was.

    He spoke from the floor and repeated the lie that the realists are better funded than the alarmists, specifically mentioning funding from the coal industry. I replied and pointed out that Australian Big Coal alone is giving a billion dollars to researchers into “clean” (ha ha) energy and that anyone who thought Anthony was better paid than the alarmists was living in a different universe from the one I was inhabiting. He was then, in what can only be considered strikingly good manners and generosity, given the mike by Dr Carter to have a say from the podium.

    Well, he spoke, and I listened. I listened for one thing only: evidence.

    And I didn’t hear any. I heard blather about how many scientists formed the IPCC consensus, I heard the lie that the oceans are “acidifying” (if they never become acid they aren’t acidifying!). But no evidence. As always.

    Re this “acidification” thing, I wanted to get up and tell him that I was traveling to Perth when the meeting finished, but then add that instead of going the some thousands of kms to Perth, I would be stopping after only 125kms in Toowoomba. Would that be a lie? Toowoomba is in the same direction as Perth. Toowoomba is part of the way to Perth. But no, I am not going to Perth if I stop in Toowoomba, and I am not acidifying anything if every last CO2 molecule available to burn wouldn’t lower the pH enough to go through pH 7.

    So why do they tell these lies? Is there really nothing at all on their side of the intellectual debate? Are they simply bald-faced frauds? Dr Carter was extremely polite at the meeting in his statements about the rectitude of these people, but that performance in Brisbane doesn’t, I’m afraid, support the idea for me. However I am in awe at his magnanimity towards one who displayed nothing but ill manners towards him.

    A sad display. But Anthony’s and David Archibald’s talks well and truly made up for it though! If you get a chance to hear them in person, go for it.

  45. I gather the ticket sales in Canberra a small and steady but that may change. Lord Christopher Monckton sold out and I missed out as a result. If the warmists decide to turn out expect some fun. I know some of them. They can put feet on the ground. Should I invite my teachers? I did climatology and sustainable energy at ANU. Lol.
    Ironically there’s a historical link between the venue in Canberra and the labour party that is pushing the ETS. The media will love that.

  46. If Chris Watson insists on spraying in public he should at least learn how to aim properly so he doesn’t keep splashing his own boots.

  47. “browneye says:
    June 16, 2010 at 3:13 pm”

    See? Browneye proves my last point beautifully! Cheers on yer mate.

  48. Anthony
    I am in awe of all the work you have done to present such a wonderful vehicle for differing views on this most contentious subject of climate change. I went to your meeting to listen to your presentation and to personally shake your hand.
    Yours, Bob’s and Dave’s lectures were excellent but I, and I suspect many others in the room were a bit embarrased by the academic arrogance that was loudly and disruptively put forth by Ove. Full marks to Bob for giving Ove the courtesy of some presentation time, but it is a pity Ove didn’t return the courtesy by respecting others at the meeting. I agree, he should get his own hall if he is going to be as vocal and disruptive as all that.
    I hope you will not think too poorly of Brisbane, most people I talk to here, including science academics, share a degree of scepticism as well. The tide of opinion here is definitely changing, keep up the good work.

  49. As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been a balanced presentation of the available evidence for well over ten (10) long years. In citizen-, citizen-activist- media-, governmental-, governmental-front-group- or even in the shall we say, official-science. In main, that’s why people are specifically seeking out speakers such as Anthony Watts. To get some damned balance. How reducing that even more improves balance is beyond me.

    If, however, global warming advocates have discovered new & compelling evidence to cause them to doubt their earlier, and fairly universal claims that the debate is now over, and feel a debate would improve their own understanding of the matter, I am all for it. At a separate juncture, of course.

  50. Ok Chris Watson, I’ll play along.

    Since this site promotes evidence for claims , I ask that you provide links to articles, speeches, etc where Andrew Bolt has been mildly or overtly racist. This is **serparate** to him being against unlawful immigration. I am deeply insulted by racist remarks (as a ‘non-white’ Australian) and can’t recollect reacting this way to Andrew’s postings. He has a very large blog with nearly 1000 pages of postings. There should be provide plenty of material for your response.

  51. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
    You don’t think it’s rude and brash to denigrate every Aussie you’ve never met?

  52. Hi Anthony,

    Welcome to Australia I hope you are enjoying some hospitality while you are here, like I did when I visited your fair country.

    Thank you for the great job you are doing and I hope like hell I can make the meeting in Melbourne, work permitting.

    Enjoy your tour and if you can get along to see an aussie rules game, which I think you will enjoy.

    Scott

  53. “John Gorter says:
    June 16, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    Chris Watson is entitled to his opinion re Bolt, but many of us in this soon to-be-destroyed-by-socialism country regard him as one of the few shining lights speaking truth. He is spot on on the global warming scam, and has been for a long while.”

    Exactly so.

  54. Noelene, No I don’t! How can it be rude when it’s accurate? I wasn’t talking about ALL Aussies, and that’s why I specifically said, “all I’ve met”. Although I did make a mistake, because the Aussie women I’ve met seem fine, it’s just the men I’ve found to be rather boorish.

    If any Ibiza people are looking in, then they might say that every Brit they’ve met is a lout. It wouldn’t be rude, it would be accurate. Do you see?

  55. Hi Anthony, I’m in Australia and am a big fan of yours and occasionally comment on your topics but more often read the comments of others – wiser persons than I am – my background is legal and not science, stats or maths but I love the comments by other informed commentators; unfortunately I won’t be able to see you in Australia; I would have preferred to see you in Emerald but it’s an 8 hour one way trip for me and I have a 93 year old mother who I can’t leave alone overnight; I hope you will visit this forum from time to time in your Aussie tour to tell us how it is going; I notice you are mentioned in Quadrant Online and your timetable is on the very popular Jo Nova’s site and other sites I’ve seen so you’re getting publicity even if its not mainstream. In any event bloggers and their followers are now more informed than those who rely on mainstream publications in my experience especially in regard to climate change so hope the tour is a big success

    If you ever get time the English release of Rescue from the Climate Saviors, a lay explanation of the physics underlying the fictitious dogma of climate alarmism is now available. KE Research GmbH, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other German climatologists, physicists, and scientists – I’d be interested to hear comments http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html

  56. Mick, why at a separate juncture? And i am not suggesting a debate. A formal debate is not about getting to the truth-it is just about winning. Given the stakes, this should be about the former.

  57. Anthony, as someone who was also at your Brisbane presentation thanks for making the trip. I appreciated the presentation by you, Prof Carter and David Archibald. If you remember from the Q&A session I asked Prof Hoegh-Guldberg to define where the boundary was between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’, to which he replied that decades were needed to establish a trend. This followed the assertion made by Prof Carter that no significant warming since 1998 meant that the AGW theory was being proved wrong.

    There was some general disorder after Prof H-G’s response so I didn’t get to ask my follow-up question, which was that since there are no climate models that are decades old, then how could any of them have been properly tested? If the function of a climate model is to predict climate, then to properly test a model you need to have shown that it works. To do this you need to make a ‘climate’ prediction which, by Prof H-G’s definition, will require decades. And yet the AGW alarmism is based on predictions by these ‘untested’ climate models, written for the 2007 IPCC report.

    As someone who has worked in the IT industry for over twenty years I am aware, as I’m sure many others are, of what happens when software that has not been properly tested gets moved to the production environment.

    This is a huge double standard by the AGW proponents. They want us to believe predictions from climate models written as late as 2007 that have not been properly tested, but disregard a temperature record dating back to 1998 (and maybe 1995).

  58. “”” Baa Humbug says:
    June 16, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    June 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Mind you as I recall in 1905, our All Blacks were a little bit put off by those damn Welsh singers singing that there “Dear Land of My Fathers” thing; kind of put the kibosh on the Maori Haka; and sort of wrecked the Kiwi composure; so maybe on the day; those Welsh chaps really played the better game, and maybe deserved the win; but old Charlie really did score that try; I even remember watching the TV reruns of the game.

    That was funny Mr Smith, I spilled my coffee. I might wear a dribble bib next time. “””

    The 1905 All Black’s loss to the Welsh Team in Cardiff; was one of the great National Disasters of a young Country. The All Black players were after all a bunch of Colonial ruffians; actual farmers and the like; why were they in Britain playing Rugby against British gentlemen; when they a were only common workers. But they sure cleaned up; beating everybody by double digit scores. I think the Scots lost to the All Blacks, something like 56 to nil; so it was down to the last Test match and the last game of the tour, in Cardiff; nobody could stop these commoners from that far flung place.

    So the All Blacks lined up on the 50 yd line, before the start; and performed their traditional Haka; designed to strike the fear of God, into the opponents. The Welsh were somewhat dumbfounded by this act of primitive savagery; so after a pregnant pause; the Welsh team rose to the occasion, and they lined up, and started to sing the Welsh National Anthem. The entire stadium joined in; and those folks are perhaps the best a capella singers on the planet.

    The Kiwi players were quite taken aback; nobody had ever reacted to their Haka that way before. Maybe it threw them off their game. The Welsh Team played the way they sang, and the game ended with a 6 to 3 score in favor of the Welsh; a couple of field goals to one field goal.
    But earlier in the game; Charlie Deans one of the Kiwi players, had apparently scored a try (three points in those days with two more for kicking a goal after). Oddly a “Try” (for a goal) is literally a “touchdown”; in that the scoring player not only has to get the ball across the goal line; as is the case in gridiron; but he actually has to physically place the ball on the ground; which in America would get you a demonstration penalty. If a defending player can get HIS hand on the ball, before the scorer places it on the ground; then it no longer counts as a try. (maybe they called it a ‘touchback’ or somesuch) but you then got no points, and you had to then kick off with a drop kick from the 25 yd line.

    The refereee, ruled that a Welsh player had got his hand on the ball, before Charlie scored. So instead of an 8 to 6 win the All Blacks had a 3 to 6 loss. When the result was posted outside rural post offices and such places back in New Zealand; the whole country went into apopplectic shock; Wales had beaten the All Blacks; an absolute catastrophe.

    That game has been replayed and rehashed every three to five years or so, ever since. The Refereee, on his death bed, is reported to have said, that he called it the way he saw it on the day; but that all the subsequent post mortem discussion and evidence, suggested that he may have made a mistake.

    So I think the modern concensus is that it really had been a legitimate try; which the Kiwis certainly would have ‘converted’ into a goal with the two point goal kick.

    The concensus also is that on the day; the Welsh team played the better game, and certainly deserved to have won the game; as it is still recorded they did.

    But we are still sore about it mind you.

  59. John Bruno says:
    June 17, 2010 at 5:33 am
    Mick, why at a separate juncture? And i am not suggesting a debate. A formal debate is not about getting to the truth-it is just about winning. Given the stakes, this should be about the former.

    John,

    to me at least, if the stakes are indeed as high as you infer, it would seem prudent to set aside a special time where everyone could put their mind to it properly, would it not? The other thing I would say is the truth really doesn’t rest on side by side presentations of science to a ‘consumer’ audience…. if one was an advocate though, it does present a handy chance to advocate and evangelise your opposite number & perhaps receive a little extra publicity in the process. Because both a debate and a forum are really about swaying opinion when it is held for the benefit of an audience and the audience’s opinion is the focus. If it’s about you getting to the truth of things, that you haven’t nutted out yet properly, that’s a horse of a different colour of course. But I get the impression you feel you have already.

    I suppose that is why in other forums I have recently read you are advocating changing communication strategies and tactics to press home global warming – and now you feel that the press is appearing more hostile, to try to insert yourself between the media and the public to find a more adequate platform for climate change scientists to communicate directly with the public as their agenda driven critics do.

    I enjoy a genuine talk as much as the next man, but quite truthfully, I can get a climate shift crew cum Sallies temperance meeting & be sprinkled with holy water & urged as a sinner to sit down & stop rocking the boat in any number of places and media forms at the drop of a hat.

    Incidentally, I would be interested, though, to know for example whether it occurred to you to propose the same sort of forum to blogger John Cook when you attended his talk last month, for instance.

    It’s interesting – it occurs to me that if a formal debate is not about the truth, but about winning – then this global warming debate we didn’t have, ie the one that was already over – what was it actually about?

    In my opinion, you should most definitely debate & discuss your fears of global warming with people who hold opinions contrary to your own. Yet having waited nigh on ten long years for a global warming scientist to publicly accept that debate may not be such a bad thing after all, surely these scientists are not in such a ball-tearing hurry now to do this that peaceable meetings must be disrupted. That’s what I meant by “at a separate juncture”.

  60. When in Rome, show respect for the Roman culture. It is, after all, their culture. Don’t have to like it, or even pretend you do, but it does pay the traveler to at least show respect for the natives.

    I have traveled in several foreign countries with little problem at all, and was treated well in every one of them. Better to be a good listener than a big talker, I do think. Learn a whole lot that way.

  61. From Chris Watson: ….I’ve noticed Anthony Watts is rightly careful not to associate himself too closely with American shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck – or any other political commentators for that matter. These guys are what they are. Sometimes they report fairly, but they’re just entertainers, and they are prone to nastiness and misinformation – more to sell their shows than anything else. It’s very smart to keep a certain distance from media figures like this. A serious scientific debate is not a priority for any of them on any side of politics.

    The same caution ought to be observed with Andrew Bolt. He really isn’t mainstream by any means – I lived in Victoria a long time – and if you want to reach mainstream Aussies (a much more moderate society than America, incidentally), Andrew Bolt is unlikely to be the one to get you there. Although he’s sure to raise a ruckus and sell plenty of papers.

    And gentlemen, I suggest the very harshness of your comments, and their political edge, is evidence, I think, that I’m telling the truth.

    Chris you are entitled to your political opinions, but they are just opinions. Your opinion that Rush and Glenn are “shockjocks” and “just entertainers prone to misinformation and nastiness” is all fine and well, even as wrong and groundless as your opinions are, but to claim your opinion is just telling the truth? Hardly, you sound like just another marxist making more false claims as is par for the course.

  62. I’m sorry I caused a furor with my remarks, but I think the furor itself illustrates a useful point.

    One of the things that sets WUWT apart as a site for information on Climate Change is that Mr Watts has been so scrupulously scientific in approaching the AGW issue. It’s very very important that this issue be debated scientifically and not politically.

    Amongst those who don’t understand the science (which is most people), AGW scepticism has for a long time been associated in people’s minds with a hard core political point-of-view of the sort that that thinks Pres. Obama is allied to terrorism, the world being taken over by neo-Marxists etc etc. Of course this perception is unfair and false; but the way to counter that misapprehension is to keep the issue scientific, and maintain a distance from those who want to hijack AGW scepticism to further their broader political agenda.

    Sites like WUWT have been extremely successful and effective for very reason that the alarmist case is almost completely political, and people who may not fully understand the science are astute enough to know that.

    I’m sorry if I offended people who like Andrew Bolt, Glen Beck etc. But whether or not you like them, I think you can agree that all these media celebrities thrive on sensation, and they all seem to have a circus going on around them most of the time. Just look at the kerfuffle that happened in the comments of this blog, upon the very mention of Andrew Bolt; and it’s not surprising to me that there have been distractions during the WUWT tour – Andrew Bolt and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg have had an online sparring match going on for some time.

    Nevertheless, it sounds like the tour has otherwise been very effective and informative, which I celebrate.

  63. TO: JOHN BRUNO:

    No response yet (to me) from my comment responding to yours above. Perhaps you have not seen it?

    I’m posting this in hopes you will see it and respond.

    – Anthony

  64. Hi Anthony, I apologize; I didn’t see it.

    I understand your position. I’ll talk to Ove tomorrow.

    And I have to admit, seeing you and Bob in person, has, well, put a human face on you/this for me. It has influenced how I think about the broader argument and certainly how I plan to act, speak and blog in the future. I hope you understand what I mean. Maybe disagreement with respect is possible?

    That would be great, and for me at least, a lot of fun. If Ove seems too, well passionate, for your tastes, John Cook of skeptical science would be great too. He is even more laid back than you and me. Very polite and unassuming. Or we could do something back in the states someday. But like I hope I conveyed above, this isn’t a challenge or anything. I don’t want to “debate”, argue, etc. I just think it would be enlightening to talk, in a friendly way on the same stage, to each other and the public. Sounds crazy I know. I bet there is common ground, things for both “sides” to learn. I know I learn a lot from reading skeptic blogs, even though I usually don’t agree with what I read.

    JB

    REPLY: I’m open to the idea, and of disagreement with respect. The first step lies with Ove. – Anthony

    —–

    And to Tom Harley: Tom, I know the comment you made above is a very common perception, but nearly all the marine scientists I know spend vast amounts of time in the field and have done so for decades. One colleague is at sea 4-6 months a year. Many of us marine biology types go into this profession because we love nature, SCUBA diving, boating and fishing and not necessarily to be scientists. We all get skin cancer from too many years in the sun, spend months every year in the field, away from families and friends, etc. Point being, we do see the changes we are trying to describe to the world. Sometimes they are very difficult to document and often we lack the baseline data to make strong contrasts with the past. We do live, work, day and night in the field, and we certainly do notice subtle and not so subtle changes. I grew up in south Florida in the 1970s. The reefs of the FL Keys then were incredible fields of golden corals, patrolled by sharks and covered with lobsters, snapper and grouper. Compared to that, they are wastelands today. I don’t think these changes (in the case of the FL Keys) had much to do with climate change (it was disease and overfishing). But we hear over and over again, “it hasn’t changed, your theories are wrong, the reefs is in great shape, your data are bogus, you spend all your time in a lab in a city, etc.” And you know what; it gets frustrating. It makes you want to scream sometimes. Lacking a time machine and the chance to take each and every disbeliever of environmental degradation back in time, I don’t know how to convince people of what we have lost, just in my short lifetime. (We don’t live on government grants, we live on the salaries we get for teaching. And I have been reading this site for years.)

  65. WHAT NEVER HAPPENS !

    So seeing Anthony, Bob Carter and David Archibald in person makes it hard to dislike them. Ove is a good bloke in private too. But he was genuinely outraged and his blood was up – but alas wasn’t his show and he should have sat down earlier. Alas if you were a sceptic there was almost nothing he could have said to start your cognitive dissonance wobbling – coz you already know don’t you?

    So we’re all very polarised on the issue of AGW. Warmists and sceptics have deep distrust of each other.

    Nobody would doubt Anthony Watts has totally shown the parlous nature of the US recording network. But the obvious question left out from the talk is – what do the remaining “good” stations – that’s all of them in toto – (not cherry picked) tell us. Does it line up with our ocean data sets, our satellite data sets, boreholes and our 100s of records of changes in species behaviour and phenology.

    So it’s not what’s being told – it’s what is left out.

    Goes for both sides actually.

    What never happens – never enough time to do a proper discussion – too combative – positions are entrenched.

    But people are still people close up and personal.

    But alas – the two sides really never engage. Why – any compromise will be seen as giving oxygen to the other’s position. Distrust is rampant.

    Having now sat through two Watt’s tour talks I can safely say you can drive a truck through many (not all) of the arguments presented on the Watts tour. SOme very naughty stuff guys.

    Most of you will simply dismiss this as a warmist rhetoric or religious belief. Sorry guys – as objective as you may think you are – there are reams of crud in there – and major bits left out. However – some points are also quite OK.

    But in the end – don’t we all simply want to know the facts.

    The public is seriously not being well served by the quality of the current debate.

    So what about it Aussie sceptics? Where is the serious debate? All that’s at stake is the truth.

    What should happen !

    The Watt’s road show should present at Bureau of Meteorology HQ or CSIRO Aspendale.

    The Australian Sceptics Party should arrange it. [snip]

    P.S. Anthony’s Aussie schedule is punishing – it’s as bad as an election campaign – I hope you’re looking after him.

  66. for Aust temperature enthusiasts Ken Stewart is working on comparing BOM High Quality temperature data with raw data http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/

    his conclusion for Qld is The High Quality data for Queensland shows a warming bias of nearly 0.2 degrees Celsius per 100 years. Comparison of the HQ data for these sites with the raw data shows unexplained inconsistencies in a number of cases. Leaving out the adjustments of the sites with the most glaring inconsistencies brings the average HQ trend back to the raw data trend of about 0.8 degrees C /100 years. Furthermore, it is based on data that has been subjectively and manually adjusted, and it makes no allowance for Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

    conclusion for NT is The climate record for the Northern Territory is based on very limited data. Very few stations have long records, much data is missing, and the Trend Maps and Time Series Graphs thus depend on only two sites. Both of them showed about 1 degree of warming, but Alice Springs has been manually adjusted to give extra warming which cannot be justified. Similarly, Darwin’s extra warming (though not used in the record) cannot be justified

    conclusion for WA is The official Trend Map and Time Series Graph for Western Australia cannot be relied on as an accurate record of the Western Australian climate over the past 100 years. This is because they are derived from the High Quality Annual Temperature Network. This is plagued by subjective, manual adjustments that in many cases cannot be justified, sites with years of missing data, sites that should not have been used because of Urban contamination, and a large warming bias. If this is High Quality, I’d hate to see Low Quality

    I mention this because there is doubt about the 15th March State of the Climate Report by BOM and CSIRO claimed warming in some places up to 2 degrees C in 50 years

    Are you feeling warmer yet?

    as to warming in New Zealand see the article by Barry Brill May 15, 2010 The warming that wasn’t … “The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.
    The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.
    here’s the link for that article:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology

  67. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    June 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    Yes, but he is Australian! I mean, they are very brash, curt, sometimes rude – and say it like it is. Some actually like that, as you know where you stand. Personally I don’t, as there’s no need to be rude.

    This quality could serve them very well right now if they would just direct it toward Canberra. And I hope they do not have a long history of throwing away perfectly good things for no reason (like their economy, mining interests, eg).

    Now I will be told it is none of my business, Yankie

  68. Oops, not that Aussies are rude :-)

    Although, you can’t do better at the helm of the free world than Australians who have had enough and are white hot, as when the Carbon Scheme was nearly passed. That shot was heard ’round the world. So by all means, let’s see some of that Aussie curtness on this mining super profit tax!

    …We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;
    Our home is girt by sea;
    Our land abounds in nature’s gifts
    Of beauty rich and rare;
    In history’s page, let every stage
    Advance Australia Fair.

  69. Hello Prof. Bruno, it’s a pleasure to meet you, even if just online. As a regular here, I hope you stay awhile. In case it makes any difference to you my PhD is in Pure Mathematics, and I’m a professor of Mathematics at the University of Manitoba (Canada). I don’t place much stock, however, in formal credentials (and mine certainly have little directly to do with “climate science”); I care more about the substance of a man’s speech, thoughts and actions than what’s on paper or the laurels he sports.

    From that angle, I assure you that you’ll find the two most prominent amateur skeptics, Anthony here and Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) to be stellar “citizen scientists”, in your words. I share with you the utmost respect for amateurs, who in my field have repeatedly shamed the professionals with their own cutting-edge work. (Of course there are cranks too–let us not confuse the issue by adding their nonsense to the mix.)

    Again, for what it’s worth to you, I think you’ll find a very high proportion of PhD’s among the “regulars” here at WUWT, and probably even higher at Climate Audit. I would wager it is twice or thrice the analogous number for alarmist propaganda sites like Real Climate. I tell you this for several reasons.

    First, if you want an audience who is likely to listen collegially, critically assess and intelligently respond to what you have to say about climate, you can’t do much better than here. You profess to want to communicate the science of climate change to a skeptical community. Well … you’re at ground zero here; there’s no better place to reach a wide audience interested in climate science. You may find it helpful to compare traffic numbers between WUWT and the primary AGW apologist sites.

    Second, you may consider guest posting here yourself as a way to communicate with this audience. Yet another not-so-subtle difference between skeptic and warmist blogs: collegial dissenters are generally welcome to contribute. You may want to talk to Judith Currie (who has posted more than once both here and at Climate Audit) about the experience. In fact, you may find it helpful to read her post here, as it is addressed as much to the science and warmist communities as to skeptics.

    Third, I must say that I find your statements more than a bit disingenuous in more than one place. You say “Like I told Anthony, in person he was very calm and pleasant in his talk. A nice change.” Are you saying it’s a change for Anthony? (From what, please tell!) Or that you are used to different behavior from (unspecified) skeptics — let us say more akin to that of “Ove”, the nature of which nobody seems to be disputing here (though you spin it, rather unhelpfully: “… if Ove seems too, well passionate, for your tastes…” Sir, this has nothing to do with passion — it is about RESPECT, if you’ll pardon the all-caps. Anthony is nothing if not passionate about this subject, and wouldn’t deny his detractors the same).

    You say “…I know I learn a lot from reading skeptic blogs,” and “…I have been reading this site for years.” Yet you appear to have been completely ignorant of the tone and respect of Anthony’s work, judging from the surprise you express about it. How can that be so? You profess to have found his presentation about weather stations enlightening, but how could it be news to you if you visit here frequently, given that it’s a primary focus of this site? You characterize Anthony’s civility as “a nice change”, presumably from other skeptic sites. You must visit different skeptic sites than I do. With the possible exception of Climate Depot, I find their tone, in the main, to be non-belligerent — a “nice change”, in fact, from some of the warmist blogs I visit — where ad hominem, ridicule, condescension, unfounded accusations and censoriousness toward dissenters (by the blog owners, not merely by visitors!) are the order of the day. Finally, if you really were familiar with this site you wouldn’t have bothered punctuating your plea for the wild-eyed skeptics here to maintain an open mind by linking to four well-known climate-related sites “… where you can go and evaluate the evidence in its entirety”. If you really were a regular you would know that links to these same and many similar sites appear on a daily basis here, in articles by Willis, Anthony and Steve.

    Fourth, since I really do believe you are just now getting to know the folks who frequent this site: I advise you to drop the condescending tone. We’re not all climate scientists here but most of us are interested nonexperts and few are stupid or closed-minded.

    Finally, I suggest you avoid trying to get into an all-out discussion about everything to do with climate. I’m not saying you’d “lose”, but we would all lose out on benefitting from your expertise in a particular field, and nothing you say, or the responses you’d get, would add one iota to the wider conversation, whereas we might get somewhere if you focus on material upon which you can speak with authority.

    Instead, I strongly suggest that you address us on material in which you are a clear expert. You’ll find the response here respectful and intelligent, and you may be surprised at how conversant many of the regulars are!

    You are concerned, apparently, with Marine Ecology and conservation. Wonderful! You’ll find this an extremely responsive audience. I, for one, would be glad to hear what you have to say to us, and would cheerfully ask questions, though I’m bound to sound stupid considering how far afield your work is from mine!

    In fact, may I start you off with a broad question? Perhaps you could base your first guest post on it.

    What is “normal”? What is “healthy”? (In a marine ecological system) I don’t mean define the word “normal”, etc in a couple of sentences — I mean explain how one establishes normality or health, for an arbitrary marine ecology. Baseline (fixed or sliding)? Axiomatic assumptions? Behavior of a model? Stability? Cyclic change? This is a serious question, that surely must be a part of any work that includes the word “Conservation” in it’s title! If you cannot pin down what it means for (say) a coral reef to be normal and healthy, then what on earth should we “conserve”?

    Let me stretch the question out just slightly: Although my discipline is far removed from ecology, I have come to the view that change is normal (and also healthy). This applies to climate, it applies to physiology, and it applies to ecosystems. We must regard “normal”, not as a static state, but as a dynamic process. Of course, change can also be abnormal (and unhealthy, which is not necessarily the same thing). Do we have a measure of when this happens?

    I ask this question because I find definitive answers to these questions sorely lacking on the “warmist” side of this conversation, though they are arguably more important than the nonsense that consumes 99.9% of the promotion of the AGW theory and its political ramifications. If there is no reason to believe that changes we observe are outside the range of natural variation, what reason is there for alarm? But even if we can identify change of this sort, what marks it as unhealthy? If you google my comments here you’ll find that I am of the view that the atmosphere (and likely also the ocean) is currently quantifiably CO2 – deprived. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies establishing that plants (on land, at least) healthier, by almost every measure, around 800-1500 ppm atmospheric CO2 than at current levels. As the plants go, so goes the ecosystem. By this measure, CO2 changes over the past 100 years are extremely “healthy” for the biosphere. Yet they are “abnormal” on the holocene scale (though not so on a larger geological scale).

    What reasons can you provide for us to believe that the current and projected CO2 increases are unhealthy for the marine ecosystems you study? What are the error bars around your conclusions?

    I’ll stop there. I hope to see a guest post from you here soon.

  70. I made a late decision not to go to the Brisbane talk because of being very tired. A shame I missed it! Several years ago, Bjorn Lomborg, a great speaker, had a similar response at the University of Queensland, with academics who wanted to push their own (carbon-filled) barrow rather than follow Lomborg’s lucid argument. It’s not confined to AGW, though, I’ve had similar experiences on economics topics. Lord Monckton got off more lightly a few months ago, the Al Warmists present were well-behaved and civilized.

    Australia’s new PM Julia Gillard has back-pedalled somewhat on AGW, citing the need for a popular consensus before taking drastic action. I.e., the centrist vote is more critical than the green-left vote.

Comments are closed.