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
WHAT NEVER HAPPENS !
So seeing Anthony, Bob Carter and David Archibald in person makes it hard to dislike them. Ove is a good bloke in private too. But he was genuinely outraged and his blood was up – but alas wasn’t his show and he should have sat down earlier. Alas if you were a sceptic there was almost nothing he could have said to start your cognitive dissonance wobbling – coz you already know don’t you?
So we’re all very polarised on the issue of AGW. Warmists and sceptics have deep distrust of each other.
Nobody would doubt Anthony Watts has totally shown the parlous nature of the US recording network. But the obvious question left out from the talk is – what do the remaining “good” stations – that’s all of them in toto – (not cherry picked) tell us. Does it line up with our ocean data sets, our satellite data sets, boreholes and our 100s of records of changes in species behaviour and phenology.
So it’s not what’s being told – it’s what is left out.
Goes for both sides actually.
What never happens – never enough time to do a proper discussion – too combative – positions are entrenched.
But people are still people close up and personal.
But alas – the two sides really never engage. Why – any compromise will be seen as giving oxygen to the other’s position. Distrust is rampant.
Having now sat through two Watt’s tour talks I can safely say you can drive a truck through many (not all) of the arguments presented on the Watts tour. SOme very naughty stuff guys.
Most of you will simply dismiss this as a warmist rhetoric or religious belief. Sorry guys – as objective as you may think you are – there are reams of crud in there – and major bits left out. However – some points are also quite OK.
But in the end – don’t we all simply want to know the facts.
The public is seriously not being well served by the quality of the current debate.
So what about it Aussie sceptics? Where is the serious debate? All that’s at stake is the truth.
What should happen !
The Watt’s road show should present at Bureau of Meteorology HQ or CSIRO Aspendale.
The Australian Sceptics Party should arrange it. [snip]
P.S. Anthony’s Aussie schedule is punishing – it’s as bad as an election campaign – I hope you’re looking after him.
for Aust temperature enthusiasts Ken Stewart is working on comparing BOM High Quality temperature data with raw data http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
his conclusion for Qld is The High Quality data for Queensland shows a warming bias of nearly 0.2 degrees Celsius per 100 years. Comparison of the HQ data for these sites with the raw data shows unexplained inconsistencies in a number of cases. Leaving out the adjustments of the sites with the most glaring inconsistencies brings the average HQ trend back to the raw data trend of about 0.8 degrees C /100 years. Furthermore, it is based on data that has been subjectively and manually adjusted, and it makes no allowance for Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.
conclusion for NT is The climate record for the Northern Territory is based on very limited data. Very few stations have long records, much data is missing, and the Trend Maps and Time Series Graphs thus depend on only two sites. Both of them showed about 1 degree of warming, but Alice Springs has been manually adjusted to give extra warming which cannot be justified. Similarly, Darwin’s extra warming (though not used in the record) cannot be justified
conclusion for WA is The official Trend Map and Time Series Graph for Western Australia cannot be relied on as an accurate record of the Western Australian climate over the past 100 years. This is because they are derived from the High Quality Annual Temperature Network. This is plagued by subjective, manual adjustments that in many cases cannot be justified, sites with years of missing data, sites that should not have been used because of Urban contamination, and a large warming bias. If this is High Quality, I’d hate to see Low Quality
I mention this because there is doubt about the 15th March State of the Climate Report by BOM and CSIRO claimed warming in some places up to 2 degrees C in 50 years
Are you feeling warmer yet?
as to warming in New Zealand see the article by Barry Brill May 15, 2010 The warming that wasn’t … “The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.
The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.
here’s the link for that article:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
June 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Yes, but he is Australian! I mean, they are very brash, curt, sometimes rude – and say it like it is. Some actually like that, as you know where you stand. Personally I don’t, as there’s no need to be rude.
This quality could serve them very well right now if they would just direct it toward Canberra. And I hope they do not have a long history of throwing away perfectly good things for no reason (like their economy, mining interests, eg).
Now I will be told it is none of my business, Yankie
Oops, not that Aussies are rude 🙂
Although, you can’t do better at the helm of the free world than Australians who have had enough and are white hot, as when the Carbon Scheme was nearly passed. That shot was heard ’round the world. So by all means, let’s see some of that Aussie curtness on this mining super profit tax!
Hello Prof. Bruno, it’s a pleasure to meet you, even if just online. As a regular here, I hope you stay awhile. In case it makes any difference to you my PhD is in Pure Mathematics, and I’m a professor of Mathematics at the University of Manitoba (Canada). I don’t place much stock, however, in formal credentials (and mine certainly have little directly to do with “climate science”); I care more about the substance of a man’s speech, thoughts and actions than what’s on paper or the laurels he sports.
From that angle, I assure you that you’ll find the two most prominent amateur skeptics, Anthony here and Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) to be stellar “citizen scientists”, in your words. I share with you the utmost respect for amateurs, who in my field have repeatedly shamed the professionals with their own cutting-edge work. (Of course there are cranks too–let us not confuse the issue by adding their nonsense to the mix.)
Again, for what it’s worth to you, I think you’ll find a very high proportion of PhD’s among the “regulars” here at WUWT, and probably even higher at Climate Audit. I would wager it is twice or thrice the analogous number for alarmist propaganda sites like Real Climate. I tell you this for several reasons.
First, if you want an audience who is likely to listen collegially, critically assess and intelligently respond to what you have to say about climate, you can’t do much better than here. You profess to want to communicate the science of climate change to a skeptical community. Well … you’re at ground zero here; there’s no better place to reach a wide audience interested in climate science. You may find it helpful to compare traffic numbers between WUWT and the primary AGW apologist sites.
Second, you may consider guest posting here yourself as a way to communicate with this audience. Yet another not-so-subtle difference between skeptic and warmist blogs: collegial dissenters are generally welcome to contribute. You may want to talk to Judith Currie (who has posted more than once both here and at Climate Audit) about the experience. In fact, you may find it helpful to read her post here, as it is addressed as much to the science and warmist communities as to skeptics.
Third, I must say that I find your statements more than a bit disingenuous in more than one place. You say “Like I told Anthony, in person he was very calm and pleasant in his talk. A nice change.” Are you saying it’s a change for Anthony? (From what, please tell!) Or that you are used to different behavior from (unspecified) skeptics — let us say more akin to that of “Ove”, the nature of which nobody seems to be disputing here (though you spin it, rather unhelpfully: “… if Ove seems too, well passionate, for your tastes…” Sir, this has nothing to do with passion — it is about RESPECT, if you’ll pardon the all-caps. Anthony is nothing if not passionate about this subject, and wouldn’t deny his detractors the same).
You say “…I know I learn a lot from reading skeptic blogs,” and “…I have been reading this site for years.” Yet you appear to have been completely ignorant of the tone and respect of Anthony’s work, judging from the surprise you express about it. How can that be so? You profess to have found his presentation about weather stations enlightening, but how could it be news to you if you visit here frequently, given that it’s a primary focus of this site? You characterize Anthony’s civility as “a nice change”, presumably from other skeptic sites. You must visit different skeptic sites than I do. With the possible exception of Climate Depot, I find their tone, in the main, to be non-belligerent — a “nice change”, in fact, from some of the warmist blogs I visit — where ad hominem, ridicule, condescension, unfounded accusations and censoriousness toward dissenters (by the blog owners, not merely by visitors!) are the order of the day. Finally, if you really were familiar with this site you wouldn’t have bothered punctuating your plea for the wild-eyed skeptics here to maintain an open mind by linking to four well-known climate-related sites “… where you can go and evaluate the evidence in its entirety”. If you really were a regular you would know that links to these same and many similar sites appear on a daily basis here, in articles by Willis, Anthony and Steve.
Fourth, since I really do believe you are just now getting to know the folks who frequent this site: I advise you to drop the condescending tone. We’re not all climate scientists here but most of us are interested nonexperts and few are stupid or closed-minded.
Finally, I suggest you avoid trying to get into an all-out discussion about everything to do with climate. I’m not saying you’d “lose”, but we would all lose out on benefitting from your expertise in a particular field, and nothing you say, or the responses you’d get, would add one iota to the wider conversation, whereas we might get somewhere if you focus on material upon which you can speak with authority.
Instead, I strongly suggest that you address us on material in which you are a clear expert. You’ll find the response here respectful and intelligent, and you may be surprised at how conversant many of the regulars are!
You are concerned, apparently, with Marine Ecology and conservation. Wonderful! You’ll find this an extremely responsive audience. I, for one, would be glad to hear what you have to say to us, and would cheerfully ask questions, though I’m bound to sound stupid considering how far afield your work is from mine!
In fact, may I start you off with a broad question? Perhaps you could base your first guest post on it.
What is “normal”? What is “healthy”? (In a marine ecological system) I don’t mean define the word “normal”, etc in a couple of sentences — I mean explain how one establishes normality or health, for an arbitrary marine ecology. Baseline (fixed or sliding)? Axiomatic assumptions? Behavior of a model? Stability? Cyclic change? This is a serious question, that surely must be a part of any work that includes the word “Conservation” in it’s title! If you cannot pin down what it means for (say) a coral reef to be normal and healthy, then what on earth should we “conserve”?
Let me stretch the question out just slightly: Although my discipline is far removed from ecology, I have come to the view that change is normal (and also healthy). This applies to climate, it applies to physiology, and it applies to ecosystems. We must regard “normal”, not as a static state, but as a dynamic process. Of course, change can also be abnormal (and unhealthy, which is not necessarily the same thing). Do we have a measure of when this happens?
I ask this question because I find definitive answers to these questions sorely lacking on the “warmist” side of this conversation, though they are arguably more important than the nonsense that consumes 99.9% of the promotion of the AGW theory and its political ramifications. If there is no reason to believe that changes we observe are outside the range of natural variation, what reason is there for alarm? But even if we can identify change of this sort, what marks it as unhealthy? If you google my comments here you’ll find that I am of the view that the atmosphere (and likely also the ocean) is currently quantifiably CO2 – deprived. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies establishing that plants (on land, at least) healthier, by almost every measure, around 800-1500 ppm atmospheric CO2 than at current levels. As the plants go, so goes the ecosystem. By this measure, CO2 changes over the past 100 years are extremely “healthy” for the biosphere. Yet they are “abnormal” on the holocene scale (though not so on a larger geological scale).
What reasons can you provide for us to believe that the current and projected CO2 increases are unhealthy for the marine ecosystems you study? What are the error bars around your conclusions?
I’ll stop there. I hope to see a guest post from you here soon.
@R. Carigen,
You should get yourself over to John Cook’s blog. Here is a guest-post description of a Watts talk.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-it-like-at-a-climate-skeptic-speakers-event.html
Another good blog on the physics of climate change is Science of Doom (though I agree the title is a bit too strong).
http://scienceofdoom.com/
I made a late decision not to go to the Brisbane talk because of being very tired. A shame I missed it! Several years ago, Bjorn Lomborg, a great speaker, had a similar response at the University of Queensland, with academics who wanted to push their own (carbon-filled) barrow rather than follow Lomborg’s lucid argument. It’s not confined to AGW, though, I’ve had similar experiences on economics topics. Lord Monckton got off more lightly a few months ago, the Al Warmists present were well-behaved and civilized.
Australia’s new PM Julia Gillard has back-pedalled somewhat on AGW, citing the need for a popular consensus before taking drastic action. I.e., the centrist vote is more critical than the green-left vote.