CSIRO has counter meeting to address “denialism”

You know you must be having an impact when protesters show up and counter meetings are being scheduled. I use the word “denialism” because the flyer I was shown from CSIRO contained that word several times, but does not appear in their official PR.

Steve Mosher had some commentary on it a few days ago here

From The Age and ABC via Australian Climate Madness I find that while I’m doing my tour in Australia, CSIRO organized a meeting that is designed to combat the sort of inconvenient discussions I’m having. Fortunately, I’ve been given the whole slide show and can share it here. For example, see how CSIRO views “sceptics”:

Here’s the view of “engaged” people:

Simon of ACM writes:

Note that they’re not meeting to hang their heads in shame and discuss the shonky science, fudged data, blocking of FOI requests or intimidation of sceptical climate journals, which is all par for the course. No, this is all about communication – it’s just that they’re not getting their message across properly, obviously. The science is just fine, the public are just too stupid to understand:

REPRESENTATIVES of scientific organisations including the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology will meet today to discuss better communication of the science behind man-made climate change, in the wake of crumbling political and public consensus on global warming.

The conference in Sydney, organised by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), is part of a long-term bid to develop a ”national communication charter” for major scientific organisations and universities to better spruik the evidence of climate change.

The conference will hear an address from Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett Representatives of the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Academy of Science and Department of Climate Change, among others, will attend.

More here at ACM.

Here’s the slides shows in two parts:

DSE Analysis of the climate change debate Melbourne June 2010 (Part 1)

DSE Analysis of the climate change debate Melbourne June 2010 (Part 2)

About these ads

121 thoughts on “CSIRO has counter meeting to address “denialism”

  1. I was shocked to see that the sceptics were listed as having as high a knowledge as the engaged people. Then I noticed the quotation marks, thus making it “knowledge”.

    I guess the quotation marks do make the chart more accurate…except not in the intended way. Whereas I’m sure they meant for the quotes to indicate that sceptics only think they know a lot, in my experience, sceptics tend to know the issues far better than the “engaged” crowd.

    -Scott

  2. to discuss better communication of the science behind man-made climate change, in the wake of crumbling political and public consensus on global warming.

    communication should read brainwashing as if people are incapable of weighing things out for themselves and
    crumbling political and public concensus should be replaced with shattered political and public concensus.
    Concensus as in everybody’s doing it.
    Does this mean I am excommunicated from the GoreGaians?

  3. Doing a matrix?

    High knowledge on the sceptics part is shown by their demand to get info under FOI requests. Low knowledge on the part of the warmists means they have to cook the books and hide the data.

    Blocking with great stubborness and impunity tells us they need to hide the facts.

  4. Here’s where Penny gets her science … Mr Gore …
    “When An Inconvenient Truth opened in 2006 it was generally supposed we had a window of two or three decades to deal with climate change. Last year that shrank to a decade. Last month Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming. ”

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/poor-prognosis-for-our-planet-20090411-a3jx.html

  5. 35% Engaged?

    Any political movement with 35% active engagement in modern society sweeps all before it. It takes about 35% of eligible voters to win a modern election. Any political party with a engaged constituency of 35% of the population would be unbeatable, especially if the other side was only 5%.

    I don’t see how any thinking person could look at that slide and not know they are making it all up. So what else are they in denial about?

  6. The facts are that spending billions$ on CC will not alter the climate at all, but it will probably soon double the cost of energy for business and ordinary Aussies.

    The developed world has been flatlining their per capita energy use for at least 30 years while the increase from the developing world has been increasing sharply.

    Out to at least 2030 the substantial increase in co2 will be from the developing world so anything we do will be a waste of time and money, we should be spending our money on adaptation not this spurious nonsense of trying to change the climate by introducing taxes on carbon.

  7. Dr A Burns,you cite a newspaper article in support of a contention that Australia’s chief scientist gets her science from Al Gore. Whether you are being literal or even facetious, your quoted sentences provide no support for your contention. The first sentences belong to the journalist. The third sentence is the journalist paraphrasing of the Chief Scientist. She makes no reference to Al Gore;the journalist is responsible for positioning the Gore reference before her statement.The fact that Gore’s position and the Chief Scientists position are mutually consistent is no evidence that she got her science from Al Gore. Of course you know where they’ get their science’,so I’m puzzled as to why you bothered.

  8. CSRIO = (C)limate-mongers (S)earching for (R)elevancy with an (I)nformed (O)rganization

    It’s hard to be relevant without the fear-mongering and phoney science that everyone has caught onto. How will they be noticed now that everyone knows the bully tactics they use were just that? Manipulation tactics.

  9. The price for the resistance of domination is vigilance.

    Fortunately, that price is exacted in truth and compensated by reality.

  10. Is CSIRO a scientific organization or a bunch of third rate product managers playing with PowerPoint?

    If they had a scientific argument they might want to try communicating that.

  11. “to discuss better communication of the science behind man-made climate change”

    They’ve been trying that for 15-20 years. They haven’t done too hot with it.

    They might want to try something novel. Like openly producing the science, and getting it right.

  12. Curiousgeorge says:
    June 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    In the U. S. Army we call them PowerPoint Rangers, also known as chairborne commandos. Vital sidekicks to Colonels and Generals, despised by those who actually get things done. It’s no different here.

  13. These scientists are very much suffering from the GOD syndrome and expect everyone to take their word that the science has not been tampered with.
    Instead of using science as a defence, they attack characters and use their own “PEERS” as character references along with the published books that their “PEERS” approved of.

  14. I’d employ Cathy to become my spin doctor anytime.

    CATHY FOLEY: I think the scientific community has been putting it out in a way, which they are scientists. They put out the information, which is the facts as they understand it. Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist…..

  15. That is hilarious!!

    So us skeptics have high knowledge, but don’t do things that we know won’t change anything for the “right” reason so we’re not “engaged”. Seems Mr. Watts falls into both of those categories, but lacks the self-aggrandizing emotion to make it legitimate to those pushing agw.

  16. @ Scott Junne 19, 2010 at 5:08 pm:

    I guess the quotation marks do make the chart more accurate…except not in the intended way. Whereas I’m sure they meant for the quotes to indicate that sceptics only think they know a lot, in my experience, sceptics tend to know the issues far better than the “engaged” crowd.

    In case no one here knows it, I am about 90-95% Liberal/Progressive. I thought GW Bush was a complete moron and an embarrassment. But on the issue of CAGW, folks, the Liberal/Progressives are basically as stupid as GW Bush was/is. Scott’s point here is preaching to the choir here, but I am telling all of you that I have not engaged ONE person face-to-face or on a Liberal/Progressive web site in a blog thread who can discuss ANY of this intelligently. The closest they come is to point me to Real Climate. They cannot argue or discuss the points themselves. When I bring up facts, whether to do with climate directly, or to do with Climategate, they just simply have nothing to contribute. When I ask how many scientific papers they’ve actually read, so far the cumulative count is zero.

    But they are all convinced. Even without themselves even looking into it thoroughly.

    WHY? Because they implicitly trust anyone having to do with academia, unless someone – anyone – has accused a particular academician of being in tight with any industry whatsoever. The trust for scientists borders on religion, as many here argue.

    I’ve heard too many nasty stories myself, about scientists over the years fudging data, or coming up with really stupid ideas, or scientists finding out their paradigm didn’t include some new discovery – making it necessary to throw most of it all out and pretty much start over again. With the horror stories in science’s past, I personally just have to look into their claims to see if I agree.

    They don’t give a damn if I agree.

    But I do.

    So if I care, I start informing myself, at the most basic level I can: scientific papers. Out of any 100 Liberal/Progressives, I don’t think 2 will have informed themselves with anything but MSM articles. That is my best guess.

    So I would take those quotation marks off Knowledge of the Issues. I would put most Liberal/Progressives in the lower right corner, under Concerned But Uninformed. Absolutely.

  17. When my son was a preschooler, if we didn’t buy his “argument”, he figured we must not have understood him, so he’d repeat it. (ad infinitum . . . ) Louder.

    It sounds like these adherents to the altar of AGW haven’t matured much beyond the preschoolers ability to state their case.

    Just ’cause we ain’t buyin’, don’t mean we didn’t understand their ‘argument’ in the first case.

  18. Once Toto yanked the curtain open and Dorothy saw the Wizard was actually just a man, the Wizard of Oz had the sense to realize the jig was up and quit trying to con Dorothy. These “Scientists” must have missed out on the lesson taught by this children’s story.

    “When the jig is up cut the bull, to continue just convinces everyone you really ARE nothing but con artists”

  19. @ Walter M. Clark says:
    June 19, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Re: Powerpoint rangers. I’ve heard that is the case. Thankfully, I retired prior to the advent of Powerpoint, so I never had one of those “sidekick” people.

  20. It is always the instinct of the committed eco-socialist, when things are going badly, to convene a struggle meeting to devise better forms of agit-prop.

    Unfortunately, this requires accepting the rigid dogmatic stance that all ‘denialists’ are deviants from the true orthodoxy who must be subdued, rather than a section of the population who disagree about an open question.

    The result is a waste of time, which does not help move the debate forward, because ‘there is no debate’.

  21. I’m not intimidated with the “Denier” label. I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, The Great Pumpkin, and Rudolph the Reindeer too. I’m just like that. No imagination.

  22. And I thought that the CSIRO (a respected organization when I lived in Oz in the 60′s and 70′s) had gone to the dogs. They are spot on in that the so called skeptics are knowledgable and engaged while the warmests spout dogma. When I first opened the power point my first impression was “Don’t come the raw prawn with me, mate”. On reading furthur I discovered that they are aware of the very serious benefits to human kind from global warming aka CC. Unless of course they are just “having us on”.
    Then again, someone may have improved the message in the slides.
    Back to the rough red!!

  23. I’ve spoken directly to the CSIRO about Climategate. THey hadn’t even read teh emails. They just took on face value the whitewash and pretend nothing has happened. THey are like the proverbial ostrich with it’s head in the sand. My new nickname for them and all other global warming alarmists is ‘Sandie’. Make sure you refer to any one that talks AGW BS as a sandie.

  24. >> Lea says:
    >>June 19, 2010 at 5:44 pm
    >>I’m puzzled as to why you bothered.

    I realize that it may be hard for you to believe a chief beaurcrat quoting Mr Gore’s movie as a reference but if you do some googling you will see it elsewhere as a quote.

    The reason I “bothered” is that it is disturbing that a chief scientist has failed to investigate for herself the utter nonsense of man caused global warming, particularly as depicted in the movie she references.

  25. The photo is too small to tell, but the Doom of Fire in the PP show looks like the routine burning off of trash on sugar cane to make harvesting easier. Such fires are lit intentionally. But, I could be wrong.

    So could CSIRO/BOM. It’s a pity that the PP presenter, Paul Holper, has no authority to enforce some of the recommendations he presents. For example, communication with the public is extremely difficult and comes at off-putting cost. It dwindles to a nothingness once it is realised that a member of the public might be building a counter assertion. There is little room for the truly independent, neutral scientist whi just might be able to contribite. David Stockwell will back this up.

    I’m left wondering if Paul Holper has borrowed logos and brands like IPCC and done a private, maverick, one-man show.

  26. I noticed on page 6 of part 1 the chart CO2 greatest concentration in 650,000 years with a plot of CO2 vs time, but the chart only goes back a few hundred years with a big tech spike at the end. So what happened to the last 650,000 on the time scale?

  27. Ocean basin warming chart over 60 years, wow how did they calculate a 0.2 degree increase in temperature, they must have really really accurate thermometers?

  28. Why was it that in 2001 the IPCC had a 60% confidence in global warming being man made, then in 2007 this increased to 90%?

    Did the thermometers get more accurate?

  29. I’m an Aussie and under normal circumstances I’d be embarrassed by the modern version of the CSIRO if not for the modern versions of NASA and the Royal Society.

    Feet2theFire says:
    June 19, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    I thought GW Bush was a complete moron and an embarrassment. But on the issue of CAGW, folks, the Liberal/Progressives are basically as stupid as GW Bush was/is.

    I was no fan of Dubya either, but you must admit, the appointment of Rajendra K Pachauri was a stroke of genius by Dubya. This one far sighted act was the single most affective way to discredit the IPCC. It worked like a charm. We are indebted to Dubya for this. Thank you Dubya :0)

  30. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
    June 19, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    Why was it that in 2001 the IPCC had a 60% confidence in global warming being man made, then in 2007 this increased to 90%?

    Did the thermometers get more accurate?

    Inflation

  31. from the CSIRO side (sic) show.
    Climate change benefits: Increased port capacity due to sea level rise. (no really)

    The coal fields of Emerald Queensland are about 300km inland. At say 3mm sea level rise per year, those coal tankers should be able to sail right up to Emerald in about…ummmm…100 million years. I can’t wait to see that.

  32. I get the impression that their opinion of the intellect of the public is low. They, as public servants are unelectable but the people they advise are, and will take a dim view in the future of any erroneous advice.

    Meanwhile two curious gems are found in 11/20 in Part 2.
    Among the Advantages of CC.

    . Increased Port capacity due to increased sea level
    . Tourism opportunities

    Must have been an exhaustive brainstorming session to produce any positives.

  33. from the slides, part 1, page 3:

    “Information about climate change comes from a variety of sources, including scientific journals, technical reports, books, media articles and blogs”

    And mountain guides in climber magazines.

  34. But do the sceptics ever ask to make a presentation to CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Nope – the rule is never engage where serious questions will be asked.

    It’s just sideline sniping guys and avoids any serious review of your position. Audiences of retirees are much easier aren’t they?

    This sort of comment “Note that they’re not meeting to hang their heads in shame and discuss the shonky science, fudged data, blocking of FOI requests or intimidation of sceptical climate journals, which is all par for the course.” is simply wild unsubstantiated generalisation. So much for “objectivity”

  35. “Scientific journals have rigorous peer review”

    They don’t know what rigorous is until they’ve been through WattsUpWithThat, ClimateAudit, Lucia’s Blackboard, Lucy Skywalker’s, JeffID’s, Musings from the Chiefio, SPPI, etc., etc., etc.

  36. Note that they’re not meeting to hang their heads in shame and discuss the shonky science, fudged data, blocking of FOI requests or intimidation of sceptical climate journals, which is all par for the course.

    Some of them feel all of that is justified for some nebulous cause:

  37. High on both end of the spectrum, the “engaged” only do what is convenient?
    So where on the graph would climate scientists be?

  38. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
    June 19, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    “Why was it that in 2001 the IPCC had a 60% confidence in global warming being man made, then in 2007 this increased to 90%?”

    “Did the thermometers get more accurate?”

    RESPONSE:

    The IPCC has always been known as an ultra conservative organization among AGWs with a flair for understatement. As an AGW I would trash their report and look elsewhere.

  39. Luke
    June 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    Now that that you’ve said that will you sleep better tonight Luke?

  40. “More heat trapping gases means more heat is trapped”. Mmnn. Venus’ atmosphere is 90%+ CO2 and it’s very hot. Mars’ atmosphere is 90% plus CO2 and it’s very cold.

    Clearly it’s not as black and white as it appears at first sight and T is more sensitive to P than it is to the presence of GHGs.

  41. Baa Humbug says:
    June 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    “The coal fields of Emerald Queensland are about 300km inland. At say 3mm sea level rise per year, those coal tankers should be able to sail right up to Emerald in about…ummmm…100 million years. I can’t wait to see that.”

    RESPONSE:

    The rate of increase is not linear. It was 2mm per year just a couple years ago and increase to 4mm shortly. Example, according to GRACE satellites Greenland was losing 137 billion metric tons of ice per year in 2002. In 2009, just 7 years later it went up to 286 billion metric tons per year.

    At this rate, which doubles every 7 years, the loss will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1,000 fold in 70 years. It’s not the initial rise that’s important but the upward rise that appears like a curve sharply rising on a graph.

  42. Dr A.Burns. Re:Gore/Sackett

    I have indeed done some ‘googling’ and in none of the Australian Chief Scientists press releases,or live media work do I find any mention of use of Al Gore’s work as a reference.

    The Chief Scientist takes her advice on climate change from the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Why would she need to use Gore as a source?

    There is of course ample evidence of deliberate conflation and association of her views with Al’s by others….

  43. Luke says:
    June 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    But do the sceptics ever ask to make a presentation to CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Nope – the rule is never engage where serious questions will be asked.

    ‘Skeptics’ are nearly begging to have a serious debate. Be real kid.

  44. “The science is just fine, the public are just too stupid to understand”.

    I don’t think the enlightened folk at this conference will be able to pick taxpayer pockets any time soon. I am relishing the irony of their denial of political (and fiscal!) reality.

  45. Anthony tours Australia giving lectures that seek to counter the arguments AGW scepticism deniers like me would put forward. That’s fair enough, it’s a free country.

    So, what’s soooo wrong with other people giving lectures with other pov’s?

  46. I just love the way these scientists, trying to improve communication, put up four graphs all with different time series!! 0-2000, c1980-2010, 1975-2010 and 1860-2010. We known that correlation doesn’t equal causation, even if they think it does, but they can’t even show us the correlation.

  47. Nothing wrong with people giving lectures on their own dime, Peter… government funding political propaganda with taxpayer monies is a whole different matter though.

  48. Luke says:
    June 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm “But do the sceptics ever ask to make a presentation to CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Nope – the rule is never engage where serious questions will be asked.”

    WRONG. I asked David Jones, Head of Climate Change at BoM a couple of times to co-author a paper and he rejected, saying he already spent too much time writing papers.

    Now, Luke, be a good lad and apologise.

    (Unless you state that you do not regard me as a ‘sceptic’.)

  49. In australia 36 turned out for the watts lecture in noosa last night ,
    Carter and Archibald also gave talks , they did seem to contradict each other a bit ,
    Not warming
    Warming but it is the sun
    did allow good questions and was all quite jovial,

  50. For info, relevant to this thread, the Royal Society of Edinburgh has launched an inquiry “Facing Up to Climate Change”, which my understanding is really about “why don’t the public get it?”.

    From http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/climate_change/index.htm

    The remit of the group will be:
    1. To engage in deliberative dialogue with individuals, industries and public authorities to help develop and respond to proposed Government climate change policies;
    2. To identify barriers to change and to recommend measures for current and future policies in these areas and the timescales on which action might need to be developed.

  51. This kind of plan comes from a fundamental failure to really understand the subject matter. No, not climate science, people. The statistics are derived from market research type polls and are largely useless.

    Few populations have been more brainwashed on climate change than the Brits. The BBC and large parts of our media, drill AGW into us at every available moment. It’s a theory that fits well into our mea culpa society and it sits along nicely with our guilt about everything from slavery to BP. And yet, CO2 reduction remains something that should be done by someone else.

    Ask any group of people and most will know about the basic AGW message. They could list some of the suggested CO2 reduction techniques that are supposed to make a difference. Is that knowledge? No. Is it successful? Nooooooo.

    There is a significant group who claim ignorance of AGW but for many of them it’s an excuse for not doing anything. It’s like asking a fat person if they know that chips are fattening, some will be tempted to feign surprise.

    Engaged people in the UK probably add up to a few thousand. People who ‘know’ enough to be actually concerned and do something effective about their carbon footprint. Admittedly a lot more ‘know’ enough to worry about CO2 emissions but haven’t quite done anything significant about it yet.

    Among those number are MPs and celebs (including Prince Charles) who would argue, quite strongly, that they are doing a great deal to reduce CO2 emissions. To which I say *&@!%**. Clearly anyone who decides to install windmills hasn’t asked the basic question ‘will these monstrosities actually make a difference to our CO2 output’. These people are very good at wasting other people’s money on vanity projects that sound good but are pointless or downright terrible. They don’t seem to be as good at cutting their air travel back. But of course I’m forgetting, that travel is ‘necessary’. Hah!

    Actually I’m not being fair. The UK governments are doing something that will eventually reduce our CO2 permanently, they’re turning us into a third world country and that will have the desired effect because poor people don’t have enough money to have big CO2 footprints. Note, the recession has had a bigger impact on our emissions than any concert, TV ad, scary movie or political speech.

    So is knowledge the best way to change the situation? Absolutely yes. I want everyone in the UK (and elsewhere) to start taking an interest in climate science. I want them to start saying ‘is that it, is that the best the scientists can come up with?’ I want them demanding much better standards of science and accountability. I want them to know that true or not, AGW is the most important issue of our times because it’s going to bankrupt or fry us. If CAGW theory is true, I want people to be able to truly understand the science so that they actually make a difference. If it’s not true I want us to stop piddling money down the drain and ditch TEOTWAWKI predictions.

    Of course, that’s not what CSIRO have in mind at all. What they mean is more brainwashing. More money down the drain. Why pursue a policy that has already failed in the UK? Because it’s not their money they’re spending, it’s not their lives that they intend to change. It’s time we asked the big hitters in the AGW machine to start putting their carbon where their mouths are. It’s time they led by example. So come on CSIRO, what’s your carbon footprint and what are you going to do to cut it 80%? And no, outsourcing it to China doesn’t count.

  52. Well Amino – if the sceptics are serious they can ask to make a presentation to the establishment. Have they?

    Interesting perspective at Ove’s site. Despite the low Sun, the satellite temperature trend seems to still be going up. Anthony didn’t seem to have that in his slides?

    http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5505

    Nobody a bit nervous?

  53. Villabolo says:

    “At this rate, which doubles every 7 years, the loss will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1,000 fold in 70 years.”

    How do you know that this is what is going to happen over the next 70 years?

    This statement smells like the very worst kind of climate alarmism – extrapolating a very short term trend-line out over a long period, without any kind of scientific basis for the extrapolation.

    I could perform similar unscientific extrapolations of the global temperature record and show that in 100 years we will all be toast, or all be deep frozen, depending on which short term trend I choose to use.

    I know of no scientific papers which claim that the Greenland ice sheet will disappear at the rate you are claiming – even the ones containing the “scary stories”.

    If you are a believer in AGW, you would do your cause well not to make ridiculous claims…

  54. I’m an Aussie who has engaged by email the CSIRO and the BoM over the misleading Climate Change information that has been presented to, and frightened unnecessarily, our younger generation of children and adult citizens especially over near future sea levels. These organisations have responded to me in agreement, with the CSIRO forcefully carrying the Federal Governments position . It is a pity as I used to respect their work achievements in major heavy industries ,but they are now political not scientific in their reports.! Given that Dr. David Jones apparently once worked at the CRU Hadley Centre, I was not taken back by the BoM replies.

    As a person who has lived long enough to become a sceptic I recognise the goals that these people wish to achieve, but I believe that they are not adopting the best method of reversing the increasing use of energy from carbon sources. Just as GST, or VAT in some countries, was required to raise government revenue to fund NECESSARY services to the population, I would rather the CSIRO be less political about the climate issue and encourage the Federal Government to increase the GST .

    If they all believe their climate projections, why are they not promoting nuclear power now. The UK Telegraph had an article recently “Energy gap means nuclear power is a must.” I recommend it to you along with the previous article from the same source “Does money grow in wind farms?”

  55. Lea has argued [June 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm ] that CSIRO do not receive their scientific instruction from Gore; personally, given the standard of their recent reports, I wish they would. On tour with Anthony David Stockwell has analysed the accuracy of recent reports by CSIRO and found unequivocally that these reports are contradicted by their own data; for instance statements that rainfall has declined and droughts are going to more frequent are both wrong; rainfall patterns have altered but consistent with landuse patterns not AGW. So to with temperature; the trends are not all up and statements about record temperatures are demonstrably wrong.

    Given that the CSIRO ‘science’ is so tainted these first hand reports of the education sessions being run by the CSIRO are disturbing:

    ““Sceptic evicted from Vic Public servants meeting on brainwashing techniques

    Two climate sceptics Colin Ely and Alan Barron attended a Vic public servants meeting on Climate Brainwashing techniques conducted by the CSIRO
    Here are their accounts plus that of an un named attendee (so he does not get sacked)

    Colin Elys account: The Department of Sustainability and Environment were sponsoring a lecture today by the CSIRO’s Paul Holper, entitled, Dealing with Climate change Denialism.

    As a former Victorian Public Servant and a member of the Climate Sceptics Party, I thought I would attend and listen to what was said and, hopefully ask a few pertinent questions.

    I attended this morning and actually was the first to arrive and just walked in and sat down and waited for the lecture to attend. A short time later a Public Servant came down and said it was a government function and asked me to leave. I replied that I believed the Treasury Theatre was a ‘public place’ and that you can’t be guilty of trespassing in a public place. He advised that he was going to call ’security’, I replied that if that was what he thought was needed, then go right ahead, and I sat down again and waited for the lecture to begin.

    A short time later two members of the Victoria Police Protective Security Group arrived and asked me to go outside with them. They advised me that it was a Victorian Government ‘private’ function. I replied that I believed it was a ‘public place’ and therefore I wasn’t trespassing . They advised that that wasn’t correct and if I tried to re-enter they would arrest me, (I would hasten to add that at all times these two officers treated me in a professional and respectful manner)

    I therefore said that I understood them and would stay outside the theatre and, as is my democratic right under the Westminster System of Democracy, would stand outside and ‘politely’ abuse the attenders of the lecture. They advised me that I couldn’t do that in the Treasury Reserve either. So there I was, standing outside the entrance, being ‘guarded’ by two of ‘Victoria’s Finest’!

    Later Alan Barron and I asked if we could hand out flyers to attenders after they left, they told us that we couldn’t do that either, so we bid them good day and left.

    Alan Barrons story
    I told the security people I was a federal public servant and a Victorian taxpayer and would like to attend the lecture. I was curtly told in order to gain entrance, one must have pre-registered and have one’s Victorian public service identity card on their person. If you had no ID and your name was not on the list, that was the end of the discussion. The meeting was for only registered public servants only – capis! I felt like Winston Smith, shades of 1984!

    I got talking to fellow sceptic – Colin – who was standing not far from the entrance. He said he had gained entrance and had just become seated when the security guys came up and said they needed to check his details. Seeing as his name was not on the list, he was told that it is an offence to `trespass on government property’ and then promptly frog marched him out of the theatrette.

    Alan says “If the government thinks climate change is such an important issue, why not throw the issue open for public discussion and debate? This nonsense about presenting only one side of the debate and holding meetings to warn people of the dangers of alleged `climate change denialism’ smacks of arrogance and manipulation as well as being patronising and condescending.”

    Someone who attended the forum had this to report

    Chris Mitchell introduced the presentation. He is a Ministerial Advisor to the Minister for Climate Change on Adaption.

    Chris acknowleged the traditional owners of the land on which we met (and said how they guided Australia through climate change in times before European invasion).

    Chris declared that he has a ‘day job’ as a director of an ASX listed carbon offset company.

    Paul Holper then went through the graphs of CO2 levels over time, temperature over time, talked about Cape Grim. He said “more heat trapping gasses means more heat is trapped”, and talked about correlation, but not about causation.

    Paul has worked at CSIRO for the last 20 years, and commented how predictions of 20 years ago have come true, and how current predictions are now much worse.

    Paul then quoted a “European Journal of Health” (or something like that) and an article that analysed “Denialism” in the health area. He said there were 5 main characteristics used by denialists, including:

    – Believe there is a conspiracy
    – Pull out their own fake experts
    – provide selective evidence
    – misrepresent things and use logical fallacies

    Paul then talked about an (unnamed) US scientist who denied Ozone was causing a problem, was a passive smoking sceptic, and is now a anthropogenic global warming sceptic.

    He showed slides by John Gardener at CSIRO (Social scientist) who classified people into one of four groups – Sceptics (know but don’t think it is a problem) (5%), “Disengaged (don’t know don’t care)” (15%), “Engaged” (know and care) (35%) and “concerned uninformed” (45%). This was charted on an x/y graph with x being concern and y being knowledge.

    Paul recommended not treating Climate Change as a green issue, as that puts people off.

    Paul suggested that CSIRO had put out “Fact Sheets” and FAQs to counter all of the sceptical arguments.

    He then went through tips on how to communicate the problem of cilmate change effectively:
    – Be Clear; Impartial; relevant
    – Be Objective
    – Be Practical
    – Message must resonate
    – Avoid doom and gloom
    – Avoid impenetrable language
    – Use different media
    – Provide info for different levels of understanding
    – reiterate over time
    – be positive

    He also mentioned Graeme Pearman (his boss in CSIRO) standing up in a room 10 years ago saying “If anyone can disprove what we’re saying here, I’ll give you people, money, resources, what ever, to disprove this science”. No one has taken up that offer.

    There was no heated exchange, although the microphone lady was a lot quicker to take the microphone back from people who asked sceptical questions that from people who asked “the right” questions.””

  56. Villabolo,

    And now that you’ve got me on to the subject of the Greenland ice sheet…

    Let’s take a look at some of the historical record relating to the Greenland ice sheet. There are published studies showing that in some parts of Greenland, that are currently buried under substantial depths of ice, there were forests growing within the last half million years or so – this has been shown by means of cores drilled through the ice and into the earth below. This means, of course, that there was no ice in those locations at the time.

    Other studies show that previous interglacial periods in the last 800,000 years were somewhat warmer than the one we are in currently – estimated at ~2C warmer in some cases. There is also evidence that in these interglacials the sea level was many meters higher than at present, implying that there was less ice locked up in ice-caps.

    This is significant in the current AGW debate in showing that the natural climate is much more variable than many in the AGW camp would have us believe – and that none of the recent changes in the global climate are anything out of the ordinary in terms of climate history.

  57. Anthony
    This is what we have to put up with in Australia, scientists with absolutely closed minds to any suggestion that their government gravy train approved climate science could ever be wrong.
    Unfortunately Australia has a long recorded history of extremely varied and fickle climate and political interference, indifference as well to proper funding, to the point that weather and its inevitable variations across the country have become a political football, where the scientists have been encouraged to use media, for biased promotion and alarm to get equipment, computers and a voice in the political door.

    Don’t take my word for it, just read the “Weather Watchers” 100 years of the BUREAU of METEOROLOGY the OFFICIAL and approved record written by David Day. Inside the front and rear covers is an interesting graphic of the 1900 to 2005 year by year representation of the varied nature of the Australian Climate. Each years graphic shows where in Australia the (Rainfall) effect was felt in the following three gradings Blue, “Amongst the wettest one third of historical observations”, White, “Amongst the middle one third of historical observations” and red “Amongst the driest one third of historical observations” and that graphic variability is the reasons that the ordinary Australian has always been susceptible to political influence in the “weather” or climate field. The Main stream Media here has always had a finger in the pie and used the “climate” as a means to an end. I’d love someone to show the CSIRO and the BOM those graphic images THEY approved, for they do show the inconsistency in the present representation of our climate. The CSIRO, the Government and the BOM are carefully misrepresenting where they think they can get away with and of course biased to convince us that CAGW is “Real Science”.

    I think if you can get a copy of that book Anthony it will explain a lot about the political reality of what we are dealing with, the machinations within those official BOM history pages will show you how ingrained the political/science/media”force” has built the awe of “any” science in the minds of ordinary Australians to the point where the arrogance of the inner group of scientists has lead them to be the political sheep in the pen of CAGW “science” to the point they cannot lose face and stand to lose either the research dollars or the public kudos that they once commanded.
    I just thank you and the other sceptical scientists’ who are willing to spend the time and effort to expose their activities and agenda.

    Please keep up the good work for all our sakes and the return to excellence in climate science.

    PS that book is also an interesting look at the historical problems in recording our temperature records, the known danger of errors in modelling, jumping to conclusions ahead of the science, the political need to encourage English immigration by toning down the harshness of our climate, and the history of flim flam weather casting, distrust of alternatives, and head in the sand scientists among other things.

  58. The taxpayers of Australia should ask for a refund of the money spent on that propaganda show.
    It would be interesting to find out the methodology of the alleged survey and to see if a survey was actually performed.

  59. Cohenite – having seen Stockwell’s presentation I’m sure he wouldn’t be game to present the same seminar to CSIRO. You have no test of a rebuttal in a serious environment. It’s easy just to repeat Sherrington’s assurance about his “neutrality”. His talk indicates he’s very much a campaigner. Let’s not as we say down under “beat around the bush”.

    BTW is any of the Stockwell’s stuff published anywhere except E&E? Of course not.

  60. And I’m sorry – I missed Geoff’s request for an apology. You want me to apologise that David Jones declined to co-author a paper with you? I am sorry as I have I missed something? What has that to do with the Watt’s tour personally and formally informing the establishment where they have gone wrong. Surely in the national interest?

  61. This notion that the public is simply not understanding the alarmist message due to some communication failure is amusing [particularly from a psychological perspective].

    The public is fatigued by the endless parade of MSM doom & gloom (whether it be about war, climate, economics, or whatever) but this doesn’t mean the public will easily fall for repackaged “feel good” misinformation.

    What the alarmists appear to not understand:

    1) People don’t want to hear that they need to remain vigilantly alarmed for the rest of their lives.

    2) Knowledgeable non-alarmists aren’t necessarily saying it’s all natural cycles; rather we are saying we should make an effort to understand the complex couplings in the climate system (instead of pretending they are fully understood at present [an absolutely ridiculous notion]).

    3) Conflation of CO2 concentrations with global temperature relies on untenable assumptions.

    I would advise alarmists to be practical – i.e. focus objectively on #2.

    I sternly advise left-leaning politicians to move WELL away from conflating social issues with climate science. You folks are SO far off base. You are UNDERMINING something so fundamental as BALANCE in our society. Climate computer fantasies [based on untenable assumptions] are absolutely NOT the route to a fair & just society. You’re playing straight into the hands of the radical right by hitching your horse to the wrong wagon. In order to look sensible, focus on #2 and treat justice & fairness as COMPLETELY UNRELATED concerns. If you want to do something nice for the environment, you have my FULL support, but make sure it is actually something that is good for the environment. Don’t confuse climate computer fantasies with the needs of the natural environment in reality. I can suggest opposing toxic pollution and advocating parks & natural forests.

    One final piece of advice for alarmist junkies:
    Get off the computer fantasies and take an interest in nature.

  62. I can find faults with almost every slide in Holper’s presentation. It is a package filled with lies, ambiguity and a lack of acceptance of alternative scientific hypotheses.

    Basically it is rubbish which is all too commonly being propogated by CSIRO these days.

  63. Feet2theFire says:
    June 19, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    Excellent comment!!!
    Been through this with politicians myself and get quoted “We fully endorse the IPCC report”.
    Gail Combs says:
    June 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm
    Love it!
    TinyCo2 says:
    June 20, 2010 at 12:52 am
    Good comment!
    cohenite says:
    June 20, 2010 at 1:37 am
    Thank you, very informative.

  64. It makes me sick to my stomach how OUR money is spent, by politicians, government bureaucrats and now CSIRO scientists(?)

  65. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 20, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Good comment!
    Trying to lock in deals on carbon taxes and carbon capture technology before the bottom totally collapses is the goal.

  66. Yes, the old climate “science” snake oil does seem to be losing its luster among the populace. Time to repackage it, and completely re-tool the marketing campaign, to give it a brand new image, with more positivity, using simpler language, and with more awareness of the target audience in mind. Remember to give people simple, easy things they can do like changing light bulbs and recycling, so they will feel engaged and positive about the outcome. Use all forms of media available, and get out there and sell, sell, sell.
    Yeah, that’ll work.

  67. Ralph – I apologise – I was citing the satellite data so beloved by sceptics. As you know quoting land based thermometers is fraught with difficulty, so I thought you’d appreciate the spatial coverage and lack of bias that sceptics inform us exist with the satellite data.

    So you’re saying that we now can’t use the satellite data either. And that we will be now using your new global measurement called the Amsterdam index. Makes perfect sense.

  68. luke: June 20, 2010 at 3:14 am ; a partial list of Dr Stockwell’s publications are here;

    http://landshape.org/enm/about-the-author/

    Having seen some of the reviews from David’s recent submissions which complained of his intention to critique AGW and the IPCC it is ironic that you pass aspersion on E&E when the peer review system is so obviously tainted. But, true to form you play the man and not the ball of AGW, flat, uninflatable and unreparable as it is.

  69. >>>And that we will be now using your new global measurement
    >>>called the Amsterdam index. Makes perfect sense.

    Sounds rather better as a global index than the “Yamal peninsular, Arctic peninsular, Northern Siberia and northern Canada index”. At least it is pertinent to forecasting future crop yields, transport problems and the quality of human life.

    .

  70. Luke says:
    June 20, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Interesting perspective at Ove’s site. Despite the low Sun, the satellite temperature trend seems to still be going up. Anthony didn’t seem to have that in his slides?

    http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5505

    Professor Neville Nicholls
    In fact, the last twelve months, June 2009 – May 2010, has been the hottest June-May period on record, in both the 31-year satellite record

    Redefining a year as being from June to May is the Modus operandi of a scientific spiv. Any month of an anomaly data set could be used for such a meaningless observation. Using UAH data there six months spreading from 1998/08 to 1999/01 that all have a higher twelve month averages than do the June 2009 – May 2010 figures.

  71. Anyone who thinks we know enough about climate and climate change and need to act now is a politician. Regardless of the title of their associations, organizations, clubs, societies, and leagues, we are dealing with politicians and not scientists. And, as the say in Chicago, ‘All’s fare in politics!’.

    No matter who is at the microphone shouting and banging his or her shoe on the podium about the dangers of manmade climate change, no matter their degree(s), no matter their past accomplishments or name recognition in any other field, they are ALL politicians. They’re out to take your hard earned money for their bleeding heart cause so they can save the world. They want your vote and your cash. And anyone who disagrees with them and their “science” is a lowlife trool.

    Anyone who claims to be a scientist and claims the science is settled on climate change, is no scientist! One more time with emphesis: ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A SCIENTIST AND CLAIMS THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ON CLIMATE CHANGE. IS NO SCIENTIST! So, keep your hand on your wallet or purse and lock your doors.

  72. villabolo says:
    June 19, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    RESPONSE:

    The rate of increase is not linear. It was 2mm per year just a couple years ago and increase to 4mm shortly. Example, according to GRACE satellites Greenland was losing 137 billion metric tons of ice per year in 2002. In 2009, just 7 years later it went up to 286 billion metric tons per year.

    At this rate, which doubles every 7 years, the loss will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1,000 fold in 70 years. It’s not the initial rise that’s important but the upward rise that appears like a curve sharply rising on a graph.

    Gee, my mistake. 1000 fold ha? So instead of 100,000,000 years, it’ll be only 100,000 years. Heck, lets not quibble, we’ll make it just 1000 years.
    Do I give a chit what might happen in 1000 years? You’re right, I don’t.

    You know villabolo, if you and I were sitting on a porch just 100 years ago, having a drink together, you’d be trying to alarm me about where we’re going to get enough horses for commuting, and what the heck we’re going to do with all that horse shit. You’d be trying to convince me that a “buck n bite” tax was essential for humanities survival.
    I’d be trying to calm you down by saying “don’t worry mate, this planet and all the life it hosts, including us humans, are a lot more resilient than you give them credit for.”

    Do you know whats grown exponentially villabolo? THE RATE OF ALARMISM!!!!!!

    A hundred years on, some of us just haven’t wised up one iota. Sad.

  73. From CSIRO webpage:

    About CSIRO
    The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia’s national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world.

  74. Feet2theFire says:
    June 19, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    In case no one here knows it, I am about 90-95% Liberal/Progressive. I thought GW Bush was a complete moron and an embarrassment. But on the issue of CAGW, folks, the Liberal/Progressives are basically as stupid as GW Bush was/is. Scott’s point here is preaching to the choir here, but I am telling all of you that I have not engaged ONE person face-to-face or on a Liberal/Progressive web site in a blog thread who can discuss ANY of this intelligently. . .

    WHY? Because they implicitly trust anyone having to do with academia, unless someone – anyone – has accused a particular academician of being in tight with any industry whatsoever. The trust for scientists borders on religion, as many here argue. . .

    You’ve put your finger on the heart of the problem: the Appeal to Authority. It worked wonders for a while, convincing much of the public, and practically all of the literati, that ‘global warming’ was a real threat, caused by anthropogenic CO2, and could only be remediated by ‘greening’ ourselves, even at the expense of progress and freedom. The public now has bigger things to worry about (like jobs and government debt), but so far the elite ‘liberal/progressives’ remain wedded to the Gospel of Climate Change. By actually looking at the science, you’ve become a rare exception.

    Better take a closer look at George W. Bush, too. He is no moron. Compared to the Manchurian Candidate in the Oval Office now, President Bush is a genius.

    /Mr Lynn

  75. So the Pod People are on the march. I suspect that in addition to dismay at finding so much resistance to the Great Cause, there’s a (possibly subliminal) awareness that time is running out. I can’t wait till this coming winter.

  76. Baa Humbug says:
    June 19, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    I got as far as the third slide, peer review. Someone should send this moron a link to the Citizens Audit at noconsensus.org so as he can REALLY inform himself about peer review.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    I agree and add to that the link to an excellent analysis of climate gate e-mails http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

  77. @villabollo

    “Example, according to GRACE satellites Greenland was losing 137 billion metric tons of ice per year in 2002. In 2009, just 7 years later it went up to 286 billion metric tons per year.

    At this rate, which doubles every 7 years, the loss will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1,000 fold in 70 years. It’s not the initial rise that’s important but the upward rise that appears like a curve sharply rising on a graph. “

    RESPONSE:
    At age 18 I was adding, on average, 13.7lbs to my overall strength through weight training. However, at age 25, just 7 years later, it went up to an average of 28.6 lbs per year.

    At this rate, which doubles every 7 years (I assume from the previous data), the strength levels will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1000 fold in 70 years. So by the time I’m 95 I’ll be able to lift the entire gym off of its foundations. Remember – It’s not the initial rise that’s important but the upward rise that appears like a curve sharply rising on a graph.

  78. Thanks you Cohenite for proving my point – Stockwell has a dearth of any relevant publications on the CSIRO issue in the mainstream literature. Sorry. (yes doesn’t preventing him from commenting of course but hey every punter has an opinion eh?) – so if you’re playing the expert “neutral” climate scientist routine – I beg to differ.

    If he’s serious he’d present to CSIRO in person.

    MartinGAtkins – kind of you to define one of Australia’s most published climatologists as a “spiv”. Such disrespect but predictable. Unlike others he does have some real climate science publications. Nicholls is not redefining a year as being from June to May – he’ simply saying that trend in the satellite data is the same as the much loathed surface network. The arrow merely refers to the last points on the graph.

    And alas it’s the same trend as in http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf which clearly shows from two measurements of ocean temperature the same ongoing trend

    and as also the 1000′s of species changing their behaviour and phenology due to warming (like over 25,000 instances) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html

    And isn’t it also frustrating that major warming areas are not over the heat island zones.

    I apologise for the cognitive dissonance this must cause. Alas the trend is ever upwards and ongoing. Some inconvenient truths not mentioned at our seminar unfortunately.

  79. Luke says:

    “I apologise for the cognitive dissonance this must cause.”

    Luke, the CD is on your side of the fence. Scientific skeptics are generally immune from CD because they simply say: prove that CO2=CAGW. Or at least provide testable, replicable, measurable, empirical evidence showing that human emitted CO2 is the primary driver of the climate, and that it is responsible for what is observed.

    The CAGW conjecture is owned by the alarmist crowd. Therefore, they have the burden of showing that the climate is acting outside of its normal historical parameters. They have failed, because in fact, it is not. The climate is not only within its normal historical parameters; the current climate is a Goldilocks climate, not too hot and not too cold, but ju-u-u-st right. Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring. And skeptics have nothing to prove. They are simply skeptical of baseless, wild-eyed CAGW claims.

    Occam’s Razor warns against adding unnecessary, extraneous entities to any explanation, such as changes in a very minor trace gas. Empirical observation tells us that everything we see today has happened repeatedly in the past regardless of changes in CO2.

    If you still believe that the natural warming since the LIA is caused instead by the tiny fraction of human emitted CO2, then you need to provide testable, measurable evidence to support your conjecture. So far, no such evidence has been provided; the CAGW conjecture is based on the output from computer climate models. And that is just not good enough.

  80. One thing they could too attract a little more credibility and improve their own poor image is to stop using the word climate change. One cant really blame gormless politicians and lawers such as Wong, but for scientific fraternity it is deliberate and mischievous distortion and spin

    The true description is AGW.

    The last IPCC documents responded to lobbying by NGO’s to call it CC because it was more prejorative and confusing to the public who will associate any change with increase in Co2 .See footnotes in SPM AR4.

    That is fundamentally dishonest..and they wonder why the masses think they are bunch of crooks and grant grubbers.

    As for the Chief Scientists previous claims that the science is settled well ..so much for her own understanding of the scientific process and AGW in particular. What a moronic comment.

  81. Well I apologise that despite no change in solar output, even a decline in output – that temperature trends, according to the sceptics beloved satellite data, are increasing. I’d suggest that’s a bit of a concern for the agenda. Soon I predict we’ll be swapping to the meme “well if it is happening who cares”.

    As temperature trends with two land surface temperature data sets, two ocean data sets, 2 satellite series, and 25,000 species records. But of course such a mountain of data won’t be enough for some.

    As for Dirk’s aside that everything is caused by global warming – well at school many high school children learn that many insects and plants – poikilotherms – have their basic phenology driven by temperature. Call it inconvenient biology. I guess if they weren’t responding you’d say “well that proves nothing is happening”. But alas they are responding.

    I guess the wildlife of the planet must be all living in heat islands.

    Of course that annoyingly inconvenient satellite data also shows us that the tropics are expanding. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.38.html

    Perhaps we might hypothesise that species may indeed respond to this change? Unless of course they’re sceptics and choose not to.

  82. Stepping through the presentations, I see repetition of the usual stuff: Here’s a blue map and here’s the same map in RED 100 years later showing that it must be warmer. Also, they show, as usual, the CO2 concentration taking off in the 18th century. Really.

    Propaganda is repetition and redirection and dismissal. This is just a propaganda exercise.

  83. Just as at Environment Canada, there must be an office full of bureaucrats in CSIRO fearful for their do-nothing jobs; they are pulling out all the stops.

  84. Folks,

    DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

    “luke” appears to be the same troll who infested Jennifer Marohasy’s site. There was speculation he is an amalgam of people working for the government in some department whose funding depends on the AGW story. “luke” will quote all sorts of papers at you, relevant or not. He is a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

    “Lea”, as near as I can tell, is a person working in academia whose job also depends on the AGW story. “Lea” may also use other names from time to time as I suspect has happened on Jo Nova’s blog. Also a complete waste of time.

    Again, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS, please. These people can wreck the comments section of a blog and may have done so in Marohasy’s case. This is of course their intention.

  85. Mike, luke is a good source of information and good fun because he often contradicts the very information he is tendering as proof of his point [sic]; for instance he has linked once gain to the Parker, Folland effort about EOF [empirical orthogonal factors] components to climate; that is very long, intermediate and short period factors; now luke knows that Parker’s PCA has been superseded by 5 EOFs!:

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N3/C1.php

    Seriously, the much maligned McLean et al paper which sought to apportion attribution to oscillations raises contradictions to the Parker paper as does Stockwell’s break paper which is still looking for a home in the peer reviewed milieu defined by the CRU revelations:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf

    The issue of tropical expansion due to AGW raised by luke is a furphy; the various authors cannot even agree on a definition of ‘tropical’ and how an expansion would of it would be measured. An interesting take on movement of climate zones shows that it has all happened before:

    http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf

    And as John Singleton says about AGW; “good I won’t have to go to QLD for my hols, I can just stay at home.”

    Animal extinctions due to AGW is a rotten line and I would say normally beneath luke but since the AGW brand is pretty much trashed, desperate times breed desperate measures. David Stockwell is an expert on animal populations and extinctions:

    http://landshape.org/enm/massive-extinctions-an-update/

    And it is not happening due to AGW. As for luke’s disdain for the UHI and his preference for the little beasties suffering under AGW, perhaps he should look for the butterflies:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/butterfly_broken/

  86. Gail Combs says:
    June 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm
    Once Toto yanked the curtain open and Dorothy saw the Wizard was actually just a man, the Wizard of Oz had the sense to realize the jig was up and quit trying to con Dorothy. These “Scientists” must have missed out on the lesson taught by this children’s story.

    “When the jig is up cut the bull, to continue just convinces everyone you really ARE nothing but con artists”
    *
    *
    Gail,

    The matter here is just this: The ‘players’ have taken it upon themselves to milk this charade for all it’s worth. In fact, they’ve taken a page right out of the ‘Saturday Night Live’ scripting, and have pursued their agenda into the face of the completely absurd.

    It’s as if they know that the audience knows, that they are being completely absurd, but in order to keep up the entertainment —however weak— they proceed embarrassingly, hoping beyond hope to pull it off.

    The difference is that SNL was hilarious, whereas the CAGW/CC line is completely and shamefully pitiful.

  87. Coho – can I just check that rebuttal list.

    Was it

    (a) the McLean paper … OK … speaks for itself
    (b) something in arxiv involving statistical chicanery – unpublished?
    (c) ONE butterfly study
    (d) and something about animal extinctions which I was not talking about

    I apologise – that is compelling evidence I hadn’t considered. I’m clearly outgunned.

  88. And I’d like to apologise especially to Mike Borgelt especially for having the temerity to use published peer reviewed literature. I had thought you were after an evidence based discussion. My error.

  89. This quote from the 2nd PDF file had to make me think WTF!

    “There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.”

    Um, “never” and “absolutely”? That’s a fairly definitive statement right there. Do they mean “scientific theories”…because if it’s proven, it’s no longer a theory it’s a scientific law/fact.

    I wonder about all those “laws” I learned now at University studying Engineering, were they just scientific guesses, scientific coincidences, scientific possibilities perhaps?

    To the CSIRO, statements and presentations like these are just destroying all that hard work you have done in the past to build your international name up. What a waste of money from the 802.11 patent cases and others you won recently.

  90. Luke says:
    June 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    and as also the 1000′s of species changing their behaviour and phenology due to warming (like over 25,000 instances) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html

    Luke you need to stop listening to echoing deep voices in your head (the ‘forcing’ isn’t with you) and take your hand off your retracted light sabre.
    You link to a paper behind a pay wall, the abstract of which states “changes” are happening, and according to the IPCC it’s all mans fault. The paper is NOT an independant verification of the IPCC conclusions, its an IPCC meme, yet another.
    This is how alarmists come up with “thousands of papers” prove AGW. In fact these papers just meme.

    Over 25,000? Tell you what, I’ll settle for just 25. Name me 25 species that have been NEGATIVELY affected, explain why the affect is negative, how you (or the paper you cite) arrived at the conclusion and what or how you define negative affect.
    Explain what “changes” mean and why it’s bad and show that “change” hasn’t happened before.

  91. Just when you thought CSIRO couldn’t stoop any lower – the following announcement has just been made :

    “The Federal Government has appointed a corporate banker as the CSIRO’s new chairman.

    Simon McKeon is executive chairman of Macquarie Bank’s Melbourne office, specialising in mergers and acquisitions.

    Despite admitting he has “no scientific pedigree”, Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.

    “We may not have all the answers to what is occurring, we may not have certainly all the solutions to how to fix it,” he said. ”

    Well all the rabbits are in place now!

  92. Oh I apologise Baa Humbug – I was making a citation as a supporting reference which you see is what people called “scientists” do.

    And I am sorry as I thought you may have know about this thing called Google Search or Google Scholar Search (Beta) whereby one types the name of the paper and pdf as a search string into a concept called “a search engine”.

    This sometimes produces a copy of what we call “the full paper”.

    e.g. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf

    It’s amazing what one can discover on the internet these days.

    BTW I didn’t say the changes were NEGATIVE for the organism. You may have assumed I said that. I did not. I did say the responses were what you would expect from a warming environment. Poikilotherms go through life cycles more quickly in warmer environments. Try day degrees as a basic concept.

  93. kind of you to define one of Australia’s most published climatologists as a “spiv”. Such disrespect but predictable.

    Such disrespect is deserved. He is not a climatologists he’s a marine biologist. There is no such thing as a climatologist. The climate is a chaotic system and understanding it involves many specific disciplines. He may of course specialize in the area of how climate variables effect marine life but that would be a subject of most field biologists. Having said that, it in no way exempts him from the study of the causes of climate variability.

    Nicholls is not redefining a year as being from June to May – he’ simply saying that trend in the satellite data is the same as the much loathed surface network.

    He was indulging in deceptive behavior. By choosing a data point at the hight of a time variable cycle he hoped to show that:-

    Simply eyeballing the graphs of the surface and satellite temperature record should convince anyone that global warming never “stopped”

    What kind of result would I get by using such shoddy statistical analysis? In the next few months when this El Nino subsides, if were to pick the twelve months preceding Dec 1998 when the anomaly reach a peak of 0.52 and compare it with the to be twelve months preceding Dec 2010 I will very likely be able to claim that the cooling trend has increased. Do you think that would be misleading of me? If I were a scientist would this be incompetence or unethical?

    he’ simply saying that trend in the satellite data is the same as the much loathed surface network. The arrow merely refers to the last points on the graph.

    You don’t define a trend by referring to the last point on the graph. The trend is calculated by using all the data points along the x-y axis.

    Now we have established his folly we can dismiss his conclusions but I will pick up another of his glaringly ignorant observations.

    Nor is the warming due to the Sun getting stronger. Satellite measurements show that total solar irradiance has decreased since the start of the 21st century, and this would probably have caused some weak cooling rather than any warming.

    The beginning of the 21st century only takes us to the maturing 23rd solar cycle. No scientist I know would expect there to be any detectable climate signal due to the eleven year undulations of our star. The ocean heat inertia and their complex fluid dynamics would would swamp any short term influence.

    It comes as no surprise to me that he holds a position as reviewing editor at Science Magazine. He is a fine example of an agenda driven scientist.

    Thank you for the references you gave me but I’m interested in the causes of climate change. I have been observing the reactions of our flora and fauna to natural climate variables since I was a young boy.

  94. So Neville Nicholls is a marine biologist eh? hmmmmm …. I wonder if he knows that.
    I think at this point you’ve descended into total silliness so any further discussion is futile. Instead of all your arm hysterical waving simply put a regression through ALL the data – the point is most basic.

  95. Obviously the slides miss a lot of the verbal content, but those charts are striking:

    A group are well informed on a topic but and not conerned about it. How that translates into “we need to improve our message” is beyond me. For obvious reasons, such messaging won’t have a high content on more factual information.

  96. @villabolo

    ‘The rate of increase is not linear. It was 2mm per year just a couple years ago and increase to 4mm shortly. Example, according to GRACE satellites Greenland was losing 137 billion metric tons of ice per year in 2002. In 2009, just 7 years later it went up to 286 billion metric tons per year.

    At this rate, which doubles every 7 years, the loss will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1,000 fold in 70 years. It’s not the initial rise that’s important but the upward rise that appears like a curve sharply rising on a graph.’

    But since we all happen to live in reality lets add that Greenland accumulates more an 500 GT of ice per year. So what does that do to your curve?

  97. Luke says:
    June 21, 2010 at 4:41 am

    So Neville Nicholls is a marine biologist eh? hmmmmm …. I wonder if he knows that.

    Yes my mistake. It’s normal to have the résumé of the articles writer at the bottom of the piece and not the the person who posted it. Neville Nicholls has a PhD in Meteorology. This doesn’t alter my criticism of his misuse of the statistics.

  98. Perhaps someone needs to sponsor a counter-counter seminar on how to combat AGW gullibility.

  99. Anthony Watts

    It was a great presentation at Noosa. I’m looking forward to your paper.
    I’m pleased I was able to get the CSIRO slideshow to you through David, because it has amused so many people. That’s really all it’s good for. They are all huffy at the moment at CSIRO because I sent them an email per slide that I wanted to criticise. 27 so far. I’ve been informed that my coments have been “noted.” Pigs a… they have.

  100. Geoff Sherrington

    It’s a cane burnoff. You can see the shape of teh cane against the flames Just another dishonest trick. In their “analysis” of sea level rise (last November) they used a photo of Surfers Paradise beach with a 10m cliff cut into the dunes as evidence of what would happen if sea levels rose by 1 m over the next 100 years. (No basis for 1 m by the way)

    I was on the beach when the press photographer took that photo. It was after an unseasonable cyclone in June 1967 (remember – the next ice age was nearly upon us at that time). It had, and has, nothing to do with rising sea levels and everything to do with teh government lying to the citizens.

  101. Richard Steckis

    Yes. I’ve commented adversely on 27 of them so far. Then I became all Holpered out and gave up

  102. @Feet2theFire

    Ditto. I am from the left and still left liberal on most issues, but above all I am a critical thinker and thanks to Anthony and the other fine scientists and posters on this site I understand the issues now MUCH better than I did when I was still an “anti-denialist” who believed Gore’s charts were real. Most AGW people don’t know ANYTHING about how climate actually works. They are motivated by environmental idealism which suspends any concept of critical scientific method. I share the idealism but refuse to suspend my critical judgment along with it. AGW is the left’s version of the anti-science of BushCo — on whom I recommend Russ Baker’s *Family of Secrets.*

  103. So many comments, and so little science. Perhaps the silliest claim is that “the scientists” have not wanted to take part in the debate. Of course, if your source of information is blogs, or the Sydney Daily Telegraph, or the Melbourne Herald Sun, you won’t have seen much in the way of rational discussion, nor will you find much climate debate in the motoring or fishing or knitting magazines. Scientists have been robustly debating the issue of climate change, in the scientific literature, for decades. If you didn’t notice the debate, you were looking in the wrong place. But – importantly – the debate is open for anyone to participate in. And equally importantly, it is a fact that nearly all climate scientists agree that human activity is affecting global climate. And it is a fact that (so far) no one has refuted the underlying theory of climate change, which has been known about for many decades. Check the science for yourself.

  104. People like Nico above are the big problem. Obvioulsy so stupid as to not be able to understand anything from the skeptic side. Constant appeals to authority. Will they ever learn? I really don’t think so.

  105. I’m sorry if I appear to be stupid, Michael. Please assist me to understand. Once again I appeal to authority: please supply a reputable peer-reviewed scientific refutation of the theory of climate change, as it is understood by most of the world’s climate scientists. Please don’t offer anything from a dodgy blog or a tabloid journalist. We must be sure that what you offer is correct, and can stand up to scientific scrutiny.

  106. No, I don’t see what you mean. Do you mean that you are unable to back your assertions with evidence? Please explain.

Comments are closed.