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)
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.
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.
>>>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.
.
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
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.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-MV.png
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.
villabolo says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:47 pm
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.
From CSIRO webpage:
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
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.
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/
@villabollo
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.
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.
“Luke says:
[…]
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
”
Here, i’ll spare you the effort:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Everything caused by global warming on one page!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
luke, temp trends are not increasing, they are decreasing;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend
And as for the surface and satellite sources being in synch about temp trend, I keep showing you this:
Up to 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend
From 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2011/trend
Any pertinent comments?