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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
“browneye says:
June 16, 2010 at 3:13 pm”
See? Browneye proves my last point beautifully! Cheers on yer mate.
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.
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.
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.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
You don’t think it’s rude and brash to denigrate every Aussie you’ve never met?
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
“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.
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?
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
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.
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).
“”” 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.
the whole country went into apoplectic shock
We still do at the mere sight of a loss.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)