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)
Luke says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm
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.
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!
Breaking news that’s sure to strike a dagger in the heart of true scientists everywhere: CSIRO has just appointed a merchant banker as its new Chairmen.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/21/2932699.htm
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.
Joe Lalonde wrote: “[…] carbon capture […]”
carbon capture = the dark side
anyone promoting it = evil
but I’m not opposed to higher taxes
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:-
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bolt flattens Flannery in this exchange:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/20/how_to_expose_a_warmist_andrew_bolt_interviews_australias_al_gore_106015.html
@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?
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.
Perhaps someone needs to sponsor a counter-counter seminar on how to combat AGW gullibility.
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.
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.
Richard Steckis
Yes. I’ve commented adversely on 27 of them so far. Then I became all Holpered out and gave up
@Steve Garcia
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.*
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.
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.
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.
See what I mean?
No, I don’t see what you mean. Do you mean that you are unable to back your assertions with evidence? Please explain.