Breaking: Australian Press Coucil release on Andrew Bolt misrepresenting science

Below is the full adjudication made by the Australian Press Council based on three separate complaints made against News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt. The complaints related to claims Bolt misrepresented key facts about global warming.

Bolt states will respond to the ruling, but it will not be published until next week. I’ll provide some analysis shortly – but my initial response is the ruling favours the complainants. But it is no “knock out blow”.

Full text below:

The Council has considered several complaints about an article by Andrew Bolt, “Time that climate alarmists fessed up”, in the Herald Sun on 1 February 2012. The same article also appeared in Mr Bolt’s blog on the Herald Sun website under the heading, “Open your eyes. Where’s that warming?”. The article opened by saying “let’s see how the great global warming scare is panning out, shall we? First, the planet hasn’t warmed for a decade – or even 15 years, according to new temperature data from Britain’s Met Office”. A later sentence began: “Sea levels have recently dipped, the oceans have lately cooled, Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007 …”. 

Three people complained separately to the Council that the article contained a number of misrepresentations. A key complaint related to the assertion that the Met Office data showed no warming in the last 15 years. The assertion had been made on 29 January in an article by David Rose in the UK newspaper Mail on Sunday. The Met Office responded on the same day that “for Mr Rose to suggest that the global temperatures available show no warming for the last 15 years is entirely misleading”. The complainants also said that because the changes in sea and ice conditions mentioned by Mr Bolt were relatively short-term and minor they did not refute the longer-term trends in the opposite direction. Therefore, they said, his statements gave a misleading impression.

The newspaper said that although Mr Bolt had drawn on the Rose article he had been unaware of the Met Office response. In any event, it said, that response was not incompatible with his statement that average temperatures were now no higher than 10 or 15 years ago. The newspaper said that data provided by one of the complainants actually supported Mr Bolt’s assertions about recent changes in sea and ice conditions, even if there had previously been trends in the opposite directions. It added that the assertions were clearly expressions of opinion, which Mr Bolt was entitled to express. It said that a letter from one of the complainants criticising the article had been published a few days afterwards, and some criticisms had been published in the blog’s comment section.

The Press Council has concluded that Mr Bolt was clearly entitled to express his own opinion about the Met Office data but in doing so he needed to avoid conveying a misleading interpretation of the Met Office’s own views on its data. In a blog posting two days earlier (29 January) he had quoted Mr Rose’s assertion about the lack of warming and a reader then posted a comment referring him to the Met Office’s description of that assertion. The Met Office description should have been mentioned in Mr Bolt’s print article and blog of 1 February, even if he then rebutted it as unconvincing. It was not sufficient in these circumstances to assert ignorance of the response or to rely on the reader’s previous posting to inform other readers about it. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld on that ground.

The Council has concluded that the statements by Mr Bolt quoted above in relation to sea and ice conditions were likely to be interpreted by many readers as indicating that the longer-term trends had ceased or were reversing. It agrees with the newspaper that Mr Bolt’s assertions about recent changes in sea and ice conditions were statistically compatible with the key data sources put forward by the complainants. But it agrees with the complainants that those data were also statistically compatible with continuance of the longer-term trends in the opposite directions from the shorter-term changes to which he referred. Pauses and even reverses in direction do not necessarily signify the end of a long-term trend and have occurred in earlier stages of the trends in question here.

Given the great public importance of these issues, Mr Bolt should have acknowledged explicitly that all of the three changes in question were comparatively short-term and were statistically compatible with continuance of the long-term trends in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the article referred to the possibility that global warming has merely “paused” and it emphasised the need to “keep an open mind” on these issues. Accordingly, despite concerns about the manner in which the available evidence is presented, the Council’s decision is not to uphold these aspects of the complaint. 

The Council emphasises that this adjudication neither endorses nor rejects any particular theories or predictions about global warming and related issues. It observes that on issues of such major importance the community is best served by frank disclosure and discussion rather than, for example, failure to acknowledge significant shorter- or longer-term trends in relevant data.

Supplementary note (not required to be published):

The separate complaints on this article were received from Gary Ellett, Tony Mahoney and Bob Thomas. 

Relevant Council Standards (not required to be published):

This adjudication applies part of General Principle 6: “Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the bylined opinions of others, as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed.”

About these ads
Tagged , , , ,

151 thoughts on “Breaking: Australian Press Coucil release on Andrew Bolt misrepresenting science

  1. [...] complaints were registered, Bolt was tut tutted by the Australian Press Council for his pack of lies on February 1, although somehow they excused him for this particular [...]

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    of course, we could not possibly address anything that is not in our bible … that one would be John Baptist chapter what?

    • john byatt says:

      I can see that you are getting a bit upset, was that due to me finding your shaloms
      whenever you comments anywhere?

      • Richard Ryan says:

        Not much chance of that … most of us deniers have a life unlike you silly doomsday prophets. See you at Armageddon Baptist Boy

  3. Bolt is a complicated phenomenon. This article by Annabel Crabb – http://www.themonthly.com.au/andrew-bolt-and-making-opportunist-bolt-factor-anne-summers-4014 – makes a persuasive case for Bolt’s radical right wing stance as a deliberate and somewhat cynical performance motivated by no more than his realization that there was a vacancy in the ‘Oz commentariat’ waiting to be filled.

    Bolt’s personal ‘light bulb moment’ was the recognition that there was a substantial audience hungry for these viewpoints to be aired. It did not take a genius to arrive at this viewpoint. The runaway political success of Pauline Hanson in the 1990s and John Howard’s subsequent usurping of her program demonstrated this in spades.

    Crabb writes that “Like the Fox jocks (that he modeled his public persona on), Bolt tends to stick to just a few themes – ‘no stolen generation’, ‘honour the Churches’, ‘frown on divorce’, ‘crack down on welfare’, ‘stop the cult of victimhood’, ‘stop immigration’, ‘end multiculturalism’ – and to hammer them over and over. Top of the list in the right-wing songbook, though, is the non-existence of climate change. Bolt is utterly obdurate when it comes to the subject.”

    Thus in his climate change denialism Bolt is merely following a path well trodden by those he wishes to emulate.

    Now he has been rapped on the wrist by the Press Council. Big deal. To have received such an accolade is becoming a badge of honour to the ratbags of the right. See for example ‘The Australian’s’ response to a similar Press Council censuring of an article by the arrogant and ignorant James Delingpole. Suitably chastised (not) they responded with another article by Delingpole which he commenced by stating that he stood by every (highly offensive) word in his previous offering. Up yours Press Council! Until we have a press watch dog with teeth such criticism is worse than useless, serving only to encourage the deceivers.

    If a way can be found to get the climate change liars and deceivers into court we might be able to expect change. But how is that to be done at all, let alone successfully?

  4. Richard Ryan says:

    Religion = If you don’t become one of us, you will go to hell for eternity so put your money on the collection plate. Hmmm, reminds me of something …
    Meanwhile, back at the Vatican, Pope Gore and Cardinal Mann count the cash.
    let us pray …

    • john byatt says:

      Have usually found that it is the creationists who have the climate change/religion fixation.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nah, its just too big a target to miss – “if we don’t mend our wicked ways we’re all going to hell” vs “if we don’t mend our wicked ways the world will become as hot as hell”.

        Climate alarmism is quite an achievement – you’ve sewn all the discarded anti-enlightenment garbage of the past few centuries into one big tapestry.

        You even have a scapegoat to blame – “deniers” preventing our salvation.

  5. [...] 2012/12/12: WtD: Breaking: Australian Press Council release on Andrew Bolt misrepresenting science [...]

  6. john byatt says:

    zoot says:
    December 17, 2012 at 2:43 am
    Words fail me.

    amen to that

  7. Jon says:

    “Funny how you guys claim a 12 month equilibrium for changes in solar forcing, but centuries to achieve equilibrium for changes to CO2 forcing.”

    Do you believe the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the early 1990s is still keeping the earth significantly cooler than it would otherwise be, Eric? Whatever solar forcing was doing 30 years ago ended 30 years ago. Changes in radiative forcing due to increases in CO2 are going to be with us for much longer, assuming the sun keeps shining pretty much as it has since we started observing it, unless some massive previously unsuspected mechanism starts removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You can’t have it both ways Jon. Heat energy is heat energy – equilibrium with a change in forcing is achieved in roughly the same timescale, regardless of whether the heat is retained by GHG, or through changes to insolation or GCR or whatever.

      So make up your mind – is GHG forcing equilibrium achieved in 12 months, or 100 years (or more)? I’ve seen comments on this site which suggest that even if GHG levels were held constant, we would have to wait centuries to see GHG forcing equilibrium – so why should solar forcing be any different?

      • Jon says:

        Answer my question about Mount Pinatubo and then I’ll answer your question about my thoughts on equilibrium times.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          We don’t know whether Pinatubo achieved equilibrium, given the drop in insolation, because insolation returned to normal fairly quickly. The chances are it probably didn’t – the ocean provides a lot of thermal inertia.

      • Jon says:

        I didn’t ask you whether you thought the climate system achieved the equilbrium state it might have if the change in insolation due to Pinatubo had been permanent, I asked whether you thought Pinatubo was still depressing global temperatures significantly but never mind. Clearly you do understand the difference between the response to permanent (or at least long term) changes to radiative forcing and temporary ones, lasting only a year or so. And you also understand that the oceans have enormous thermal inertia. Why pretend you don’t?

        To your “Heat energy is heat energy…” I reply that yes, so what, that doesn’t make transient changes in radiative forcing the same as changes that are effectively permanent on human timescales. To analogise, you would reach equilibrium after being punched once quicker than you would reach equilibrium if someone were to administer you a beating that continued indefinitely.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given the uncertainty and noise in the global climate system, the fact that different temperature series can’t even agree on the rate of warming, by quite a large margin, the answer is “possibly, but we’ll never know”.

      • zoot says:

        Jon, Eric spouts the words, but he doesn’t understand the concepts underlying them, particularly if those concepts falsify his beliefs. He is a true believer, and nothing in the real world will change what he knows the truth to be.

      • Jon says:

        Eric,

        If the climate system is so noisy that not only can’t we be certain whether Pinatubo early 1990s eruption is still significantly depressing global temperatures but we’ll never know, how exactly is it you’re so certain that the recent relatively slow increase in global temperatures from cherry picked starting points in the late 1990s isn’t entirely due to noise in the climate system obscuring the continuing underlying trend? Or, to put it another way, what makes you think Foster and Rahmstorf are wrong?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Global temperature is only accurate to around 0.1c or so, maybe even less accurate – just look at the divergence between Hadcrut and GISS over the last 15 years. So any effect less than 0.1c is lost in the uncertainty.

          Given that NASA believes that Pinatubo caused 1/4 of a degree drop in global temperatures (according to NASA – http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/ ), its difficult to draw any conclusions about the longevity or latency of the effect, because the peak of the effect only just crossed the threshold of detectability.

          In any case, if you read some of my other comments on this subject, you will see where I’m coming from on this issue.

          If there is a latency before equilibrium is achieved w/r to CO2 forcing, because of interaction with other climate components (e.g. the ocean), then exactly the same equilibrium issues must apply to long term changes to solar forcing, regardless of whether this is expressed through TSI, GCR, EUV interaction with the thermosphere, or some as yet unexplored interaction.

        • Jon says:

          “…just look at the divergence between Hadcrut and GISS over the last 15 years. ”

          Hadcrut and GISS have significantly different spatial coverage, mostly at high latitudes where warming has been faster than elsewhere, as predicted by, among others, James Hansen decades ago – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/why-i-must-speak-out-about-climate-change/. That they differ somewhat, even for that difference to have grown in recent decades, is to be expected.

      • john byatt says:

        And their trends are identical

  8. Richard Ryan says:

    Poor alarmists – nothing is going right. “We cannot rely on these facts because they dont stack up against the theory”

  9. john byatt says:

    Man caught driving wrong way on freeway blames GPS
    Posted 1 hour 35 minutes ago

    RELATED STORY: Apple Maps strands motorists looking for Mildura
    MAP: Clonbinane 3658
    A man caught driving the wrong way on a Victorian highway has told police he was following instructions from his GPS unit.

    The 37-year-old was pulled over after travelling down the Hume Freeway between Clonbinane and Broadford, in central Victoria, around 4:30am AEDT.

    The New South Wales man told police he had referred to his GPS for the 20-kilometre journey.

    He said he was unconcerned by passing traffic because he thought he was on a dual carriageway.

    Last week, Mildura police issued a warning about relying on devices that use online maps.

    Authorities have rescued six people from the Murray Sunset National Park over the past two months due to inaccurate data.

    Meanwhile, another New South Wales driver had his car impounded after being caught doing 177 kilometres an hour on the Hume Freeway last night.

    The 17-year-old P-plater told police he was speeding because his car was running out of petrol.

    reminds me of the guy driving home on the freeway, gets a phone call from his wife,

    “be carefull honey the news report just said that some lunatic is driving down the freeway on the wrong side of the road.

    “hell he said , some lunatic, there are bloody hundreds of them,

    wrong way Rawls?

  10. john byatt says:

    George Monbiot …….. The Gift of Death

    http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/10/the-gift-of-death/

  11. john byatt says:

    Re Creationist Alec Rawls ( amplifying negatives to produce a positive?) WUWT

    If anybody is unaqquainted about what kind a personality Alec Rawls is, I suggest they take a look at this blog highlighting his greatest thoughts. My personal favourite is his hypothesis that there is a great MSM-US government-Islamo-fascist conspiracy in play which has turned the Ground Zero memorial into a covert mosque to mock the victims:

    Redesigned Flight 93 memorial still an Islamo-fascist shrine

    I have no doubt that this gentleman honestly believes climate scientists (along with the feminazis and those who faked the moon landing, of course) to be part of this same grand conspiracy, too. Perhaps it´s time to restrict the access to being an “IPCC expert reviewer”, anyone

    More confirmation that climate deniers are conspiracy theorists and complete nutters

    ,

  12. john byatt says:

    JIM Hansen

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20121213_StormsOfOpa.pdf

    Summary
    An honest, gradually rising, price on carbon, making fossil fuels pay their costs to society,
    including externalities, makes economic sense and is needed for rapid phase-down of fossil fuels.
    Other things are needed, but the base requirement is an across-the-board universal carbon fee.
    Scientists should not accept fossil fuel scenarios foisted on us by compliant government
    agencies. Instead, we should help define carbon emission scenarios that avoid growing regional
    climate extremes and climate tipping points that can cause disintegration of ice sheets and largescale extermination of species. Those government agencies, virtual arms of the fossil fuel
    industry, have a bad record in projecting energy requirements. Even in the U.S., with little effort
    to control energy use growth during the past few decades, reality forces energy agencies to
    continually revise downward their projections (cf. Fig. 3 in “Storms of My Grandchildren”).We must stanch a pervasive defeatism that is about. Humanity is not a bunch of lemmings
    marching unstoppably toward a cliff. There is such a thing as free will. It seems that many
    people have slipped into an unhelpful resignation, ultimately leading to a way of thinking that
    accepts fossil fuel industry propaganda.
    People please wake up! For the sake of young people, future generations, and other life on our
    planet, don’t settle for what some “experts” say is the best we can do. In fact, we can move on to
    clean energies and energy efficiency, but only if we are wise enough to put an honest rising price
    on carbon emissions. It is equally clear, I submit, that the public will only allow an adequate
    rising price on carbon if the system is simple and transparent with the proceeds distributed to the
    public. That will provide the public with the resources required to make the needed changes as
    we move to cleaner energies and a bright future that preserves the planet and life that we know.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Not a chance.

      Japan, Canada and Russia openly defying Kyoto.

      America never ratified it.

      China and India refusing to discuss reducing emissions, until they match America’s historical per capita levels (or until America makes deep enough cuts to even things up, or some such).

      The funniest thing is, the world isn’t even warming.

      You’ll need an appeal a great deal more convincing than a few words from jailbird Hansen.

  13. john byatt says:

    This so called leaked IPCC report is going to be a headache for the politicians as we will know exactly what parts they have removed to downplay the urgency

    This may be the biggest back fire ever on the deniers,

    Karma rules

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

      Bye Bye alarmism.

      • Nick says:

        That’s a simple quote-mine,you idiot. Lord knows why you think no one will notice!

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Any substantial solar influence is the death knell of alarmism.

          To be alarming, you need joke climate sensitivities of 3c+ / doubling.

          If solar activity, through GCR or an as yet unidentified mechanism, contributed substantial warming in the 20th century, then high sensitivities cannot be inferred from 20th century warming, or any other warming.

      • Nick says:

        As I said above, you’ve quote mined that segment. Your reply? “Look over there”

        Your reply also reveals you are utterly unfamiliar with attribution work of the past two decades. Many studies have already stated that solar activity HAS contributed substantially to 20th C warming. It’s a non-issue. You’re not even at the ballpark,let alone in the game,Eric.

        The ‘campaign’ against the science on climate is characterised by such routine incompetence,and a complete lack of self-awareness by deniers of their ignorance of what the science covers and what policy makers are privy to .You embarrass yourselves daily in thinking that you are running a scientifically based,functional or meaningful opposition.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Many studies have already stated that solar activity HAS contributed substantially to 20th C warming. It’s a non-issue. You’re not even at the ballpark,let alone in the game,Eric.

          You better tell Skeptical Science – they think CO2 effects on climate are an order of magnitude greater than solar.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-hockey-stick.html

          The ‘campaign’ against the science on climate is characterised by such routine incompetence,and a complete lack of self-awareness by deniers of their ignorance of what the science covers and what policy makers are privy to .You embarrass yourselves daily in thinking that you are running a scientifically based,functional or meaningful opposition.

          Regardless of your opinion of our science, its an *effective* opposition, given that we have kept Asia and now Canada, Russia and Japan out of the Kyoto agreement, and the possibility of a global climate agreement is dead as a dodo.

      • Nick says:

        I said ‘substantial’,Eric,’Substantial’ means ‘of substance’. It’s not a quantification in absolute or specific relative terms. Solar contribution to 20th C warming is ‘of substance’ but IS dominated by AGHG effects. As I said ,not an issue. Certainly not an issue if you READ THE LITERATURE without prejudice.

        Those who would claim that solar changes ‘dominate’ would be speaking out of their arses,given what attribution studies actually say. But of course it’s quite OK [sarc] for dumbnialists to make shit up,or like the idiot ideologue Alec Rawls,to break a confidentiality agreement in order to present a dishonest impression of what is actually stated about GCR influence. The usual circle jerk of liars has propagated the falsehood,predictably brazen and transparently stupid as usual.

        I despair for your fellow travellers intellectual competence,and their delusion about how their behavior plays with those who really have to knuckle down and digest the science and turn it into policy and management choices. You are trashing your credibilities,and seem to care not one whit about that. Bemusing in the extreme.

        You’ve actually implicitly admitted you have no science,and are happy with some superficial populism.Congratulations.

      • a rational troll says:

        The interpretations of Hansen are, for the greatest part, accepted by every major scientific organisation on the planet. Are you really so blinded to believe that ideology plays no part in the interpretation of data by the skeptics? Really?…. Really? You seem oblivious to the irony that many of the individuals you link to are completly devoid of credibility.

        But if it’s credibility you’re after, why not ask someone with real credibility,

        “As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,”As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

        “As citizens of the world, we have a duty to share that knowledge. We have a duty, as well, to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change.

        But then again, what would Stephen Hawking know, he’s clearly one gullible mofo.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If we’re name dropping now, I could mention Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen Bomb, or a fellow Manhattan scientist Freeman Dyson, who both think the physics behind alarmist climate science is nonsense.

          And I could explain why I’m not impressed by a few august institutions lending their name to the science – at the height of the craze, catastrophist Eugenics was supported by high profile departments in many of America and Europe’s premier science centres, so support from prestigious scientific organisations is obviously not a reliable indicator of truth.

          But the biggest problem for alarmism is the lack of warming. A few more years of record breaking CO2 increases with no rise in global temperature should finish your religion off.

      • Nick says:

        Edward Teller died in 2003, so he ain’t thinking much about anything currently. And why do you think a nuclear physicist’s opinion about another field is valuable? The man never did any climate research. Ditto Dyson.

        You’d choose to downgrade a professional body’s view of an issue,and play up the alleged views of a dead nuke expert and an emeritus with no work in the field he’s commenting on.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          When they are talking about matters of Physics, yes.

          The people who built the first atom bomb understood physics in a way which you and I will never understand it. If they think the physics behind alarmist science is nonsense, then there is a solid reason for thinking this might be the case.

          Then you have a growing body of lukewarmers like Muller (and maybe Hawking?), who think anthropogenic warming might cause problems in the future, but there is no immediate need to act.

          All in all, your “consensus” is starting to look a little tatty.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Interestingly, designing a nuclear bomb requires a highly developed insights into radiation and radiative transfer – key aspects of alarmist climate theory. I wonder if this is where they see the problems?

      • zoot says:

        The people who built the first atom bomb understood physics in a way which you and I will never understand it.

        You speak for yourself dumbo, not the rest of us.

      • Nick says:

        You already have a lot of problems Eric,appealing to authority–a no-no,no?– with elderly/dead physicists with irrelevant work experience. The main one here is that Rawls is a fruit-cake and liar and does not seem to care who knows. His bumbling mendacious reading of the draft is transparently wrong. And you handed it on uncritically. Are you an idiot? Why are you a sucker for the Rawls of this world?

    • rubber taster says:

      You gotta remember that Eric loves the idea of cosmic rays influencing the climate because he thinks he is communicating with aliens on a special gamma ray frequency. Between that and his animal porn, he is quite a busy troll.

  14. john byatt says:

    NASA GISS

    2012 just knocked 2011 out of ninth place for warmest years since 1880

  15. john byatt says:

    I hear that newman is thinking of removing all buiding codes, you get the option of non shatter proof glass in the shower, non water saving devices, running your shit straight out onto the lawn etc, only one window in the house if you like. you will be able to save $50,000

    oh no he is just removing those with an environmental outcome

    go figure

  16. john byatt says:

    what happens when a government is advised on climate change by a bloke with a fish box and a piece of gladwrap to disprove the greenhouse effect,

    http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/law-changes-improve-housing-affordability-hia/1660401/

    The QLD LNP Denial team

  17. john byatt says:

    Anyone interested, I have just put up a post on Uknowispeaksense regarding

    Watts wrong with GCR’s

    Today, Mikes blog, tommorrow the world

    Yes Mike did give me permission while he is sunbaking and swimming in forest steams.
    hope I do not cop it when he gets back

  18. john byatt says:

    Dear Willard,

    establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

    … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
    … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
    … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
    … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
    Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been any

    Gavin Schmidt

  19. john byatt says:

    What a load of complete frogshit at WUWT

    An out of context quote and not one of the links works.

    right, there is no contribution from GCR’s to the current warming,

    get used to it Willard

    • john byatt says:

      So willard puts up more links which my computer advises not to download, common willard post the full section referred to,

  20. eworrall1 says:

    Leaked IPCC AR5 draft vindicates Bolt. And Svensmark.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

    Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

    The only question – when do you plan to apologise for calling us deniers?

    • zoot says:

      … when do you plan to apologise for calling us deniers?

      When you show us some scientific proof supporting your position.
      Until you do, there is no other term to describe your wilful ignorance of the state of the planet and your insistence that a position you hold on faith alone is somehow reality.
      You can’t be called skeptics because you swallow whole any nonsense that supports your position – eg give me one link where you have been skeptical of statements made by Watts or Coddling (just one will do).
      You don’t seem to realise that we would all be like pigs in poo if anyone could definitively show that global warming had ceased in 2005 (Fact!). The sad reality, which you deny, is that there is no evidence to support your religion of denial, it is purely a matter of faith.

      • eworrall1 says:

        The only faith here is that dangerous global warming is somehow continuing, even though the thermometers say it stopped 15 years ago.

        I’m looking forward to your frantic response to AR5 – if the leaked draft stands, it should be funny.

      • zoot says:

        The only faith here is that dangerous global warming is somehow continuing, even though the thermometers say it stopped 15 years ago.

        Yawn. Prove that’s what the thermometers say.
        All we need is proof but you insist on science by assertion.

    • Nick says:

      “Leaked IPCC report vindicates Bolt…and Svensmark”

      Bullshit,Eric. Just more of your moronic fellow travellers having comprehension problems. Read the f…ing draft. No vindication of GCR whatsoever,and its lead author has publicly derided such claims about the draft. Attempts to claim otherwise are absurd. WUWT followers are children,simple children. In fact most kids are smarter than that lot LOL

  21. john byatt says:

    Geoff Brown at TCS chucks a hissy fit

    went over there after being challenged that their data, Monckton and Morner all say that sea level is not rising, they even had a NOAA article to prove it,
    Geoff got a bit upset at the end

    Geoff BrownDecember 13, 2012 10:15 PM
    Byatt: “stay cool geoff, JPL is never wrong ”

    JPL

    http://www.jplennard.com/

    http://www.jplcreative.com/

    http://jpl.coj.net/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory

    Gee, another sweeping statement from the non-scientific, non-contractual, non-sequitor Mr Byatt.

    134 Climate scientists are wrong, no argument, no logic, but just because Mr Byatt says so……WOW

    And Now….

    JPL is never wrong…

    With logic like that, we must all bow down to a masterbator..sorry master debator.

    JPLeonard and
    JPL Creative….and
    swimming Pools and Cooloola Fools

    Thanks for keeping us SO-O-O informed with your (…..) knowledge, Mr Byatt.

    and…golly…your amazing (LACK OF) debating skills.

    Reply

  22. john byatt says:

    The climate sceptic party once again confirming their own ignorance

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/ipccs-sea-level-rise-projections-busted.html

    I was going to leave them to wallow in their own ignorance but some bloke named Leo asked, will that batty person now turn up and say that expert Morner is wrong

    well i did and I did.

  23. Sou says:

    I’ve been told that Bolt wears his ignorance badge proudly. He is said to equate ‘ignorance’ with ‘independence’ – and then goes on to expound at length misleading information on matters on which he claims ignorance. Why would anyone take any notice of stuff written by him on a topic on which he claims ‘ignorance’?

    By the way, I’ve started another blog, So far it’s mostly a rant about being banned from a share trading forum for telling the mods (privately) that someone had made some nasty sexist posts I used to spend a lot of time there posting about climate science, which I think is the reason they turfed me. (I’ve noticed recently more sane people have started to fill the void combating the Neanderthals there. So that’s good.)

    Because so far it’s mostly my own personal rant it might be boring or make uncomfortable reading. However I’m going to continue to develop the blog a bit along the same lines as Mike’s here in that I’ll be writing about deniers and what motivates them etc. The internet is still full of nonsense that’s worth rebutting.

    (My main blog has been cleaned out as well. I want to start writing more indepth articles about climate and environment, particularly in Australia – like the Murray-Darling. A job for next year.)

    http://hotwhopper.blogspot.com.au/ – the blog about climate denial, sexism and stuff

    http://bundanga.blogspot.com/ – the more serious blog about climate and environment to be picked up again next year, currently empty.

    Hope you don’t mind the plug, Mike.

  24. john byatt says:

    A bit of perspective,

    2010 was the warmest year since 1880

    what was the sun doing?

  25. eworrall1 says:

    Dilbert on correlation implies causation

    http://www.dilbert.com/2012-12-12/

    Maybe you guys should file a complaint to the PCC.

  26. john byatt says:

    “In a blog posting two days earlier (29 January) he had quoted Mr Rose’s assertion about the lack of warming and a reader then posted a comment referring him to the Met Office’s description of that assertion. The Met Office description should have been mentioned in Mr Bolt’s print article and blog of 1 February, even if he then rebutted it as unconvincing. It was not sufficient in these circumstances to assert ignorance of the response or to rely on the reader’s previous posting to inform other readers about it. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld on that ground”

    this is interesting in that the ABC refused my own complaint against ted lapkin’s doctoring of the Schneider comment stating that as it was brought up in the comments then that was sufficient,

    according to this ruling the ABC was obliged to include Schneider’s full comment as it had been referred to in the comments section

    He was then at liberty to try and refute it, not hide it as he did in his crap piece

  27. It’s hard to know if Bolt is just trying to be a stirrer, is wilfully ignorant or a confirmed climate change denialist. Probably a bit of all three. One thing for certain, he’s not interested in informed commentary or enlightening his readers.

    If only his scientific understanding was on par with his ego, we could disband all the scientific organisations studying this phenomena and go to the great sage Andrew Bolt.

    If nothing else it proves that Murdoch rags aren’t too fussy about the scribes they hire to write nonsense.

  28. Eric Worrall says:

    Its a shame they didn’t read the NOAA State of the Climate report 2008, which refutes the suggestion that current trends are statistically compatible with long term warming:-

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    Thats the problem when you set up an excessively powerful organisation with a mandate to ensure the truth is told – they are as likely to get it wrong as anyone else.

    • Jon says:

      It’s a shame you omitted the preceding sentence from what you quoted:

      “ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervalsof 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      Apparently it’s a shame you didn’t read the NOAA SOTC 2008 report. Or, if you read it. didn’t understand it. Or, if you understood it,. just misrepresented what it said, specifically the part about “ENSO-adjusted”.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I understood it, I just dispute it. Claiming that after you add a series of arbitrary adjustments to the data that the data fits your predictions is hardly a compelling argument. The underlying assumption is that ENSO is a cause rather than an effect. Given that noone has a good predictive model for ENSO, that is quite an assumption.

        The statement about “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more” stands on its own merits.

        But I’m happy to wait and see. The ENSO excuse is going to wear pretty thin in a hurry, if temperatures don’t start rising. 15 years and counting.

      • Jon says:

        Perhaps you ought to consider not citing an analysis as authoritative proof that you’re right if you dispute it.

        You might also want to consider refraining from accusing people of not having read that analysis when their position is consistent with it and yours isn’t. That is, if you wished to argue your position in good faith.

        Your claim “The statement about “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more” stands on its own merits.” is ludicrously stupid. It begs the question “Zero trends in what?” to which a correct answer would be “Something other than the quantity in which Bolt and Rose were claiming zero or near zero trends had been observed.”.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Temperature trend has been flat since 1997 Jon – you surely don’t deny that.

          It might be because a remarkable series of climatic coincidences accidentally happened to mask the underlying trend.

          Or it could be because the assumed underlying trend is wrong.

          The best way to resolve this question is a little time. Given a climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling, around 0.3c of warming is missing. If it is ENSO which is suppressing that missing warming, when the cycle reverses and pumps that heat back into the atmosphere, temperatures should jump by at least 0.3c, maybe as high as 0.6c.

          I look forward to your continued excuses as to why this has not happened, over the next few years.

      • Jon says:

        To elaborate, your position seems to be that the NOAA has invented an arbitrary and meaningless thing call ENSO-adjusted temperature and that the lack of tend in not this meaningless quantity but in another quantity proves something because of something they said about that meaningless quantity. You aren’t going to win any prizes for logical thinking if that’s the standard to which you aspire.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          We’re talking about the same bunch of clowns who think adding a hockey stick adjustment which peaks at around +0.6c, then declaring a hockey stick shaped rise in temperature, is good science. Arbitrary adjustments seem to be their thing.

      • Jon says:

        “Arbitrary adjustments seem to be their thing.”

        Whereas your thing (in addition to taking quotes out of crucial context and not understanding that a conclusion based on a statistical analysis of one time series can’t automatically be applied to another time series) seems to be believing adjustments are arbitrary just because you say they are. If you can actually demonstrate that the adjustments you don’t like are arbitrary, you should write up your arguments and submit them to a scientific journal.

        • eworrall1 says:

          A massive, poorly documented adjustment which looks like a hockey stick, applied to stations riddled with siting errors / UHI, being continuously adjusted upwards, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?

          My partner did that once to a physics prac studying trajectory. He fiddled the result to make the momentum right, but messed up the kinetic energy. We would have gotten an “F” except the teacher let us repeat the experiment.

          You guys do make me laugh.

      • Jon says:

        “A massive, poorly documented adjustment which looks like a hockey stick, applied to stations riddled with siting errors / UHI, being continuously adjusted upwards, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?”

        Since the US certainly became continuously more urban over the course of the 20th century, it would be surprising and suspicious if the adjustments required to correct for UHI effects on the temperature sensor network hadn’t grown more or less continuously from 1900 to 2000.

        Are these the best arguments you have? Are we really supposed to take seriously your insinuation that because your physics lab partner and you falsified some data once upon a time any scientific result you don’t like should be assumed to be a hoax?

        • eworrall1 says:

          Are we really supposed to take a massive, hockey stick shaped adjustment to raw data seriously? An adjustment which is not properly documented, applied to poorly sited stations (of which we would know nothing quantative without the Watts Surface Stations project)?

          You might choose to believe in the carbon fairy. I prefer my data raw.

      • Jon says:

        ” I prefer my data raw.”

        You admit that the temperature sensing network is impacted by siting problems and UHI, i.e. adjustments are necessary to correct for those influences, but you nevertheless prefer your data raw? Fortunately, the rest of us aren’t obliged to be as stupid as you and prefer raw data that is known to be problematic to data that has had the problems fixed as best scientists can devise.

        BTW, you saying something is not properly documented isn’t the same thing as it not being properly documented. Much as you saying “the NOAA State of the Climate report 2008… refutes the suggestion that current trends are statistically compatible with long term warming” didn’t make it true. That statement, seemingly like many you make here, was precisely the opposite of true, as you well knew when you wrote it and have since admitted you knew.

      • Jon says:

        “Which part of “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for 15 years or more” are you having difficulty understanding?”

        None. You, on the other hand, seem to have difficulty accepting that you aren’t entitled to pretend that statement applies to trends adjusted for the effect their analysis ascribes to ENSO, hence the presence of the words “ENSO-adjusted’ in the preceding sentence. You aren’t entitled to ignore words in what they wrote just because they make what they wrote mean something other than what you want it to mean.

        Actually, I suppose you are entitled to pretend that – everyone has a right to a fantasy life. You just can’t expect the rest of us to take your fantasies seriously anymore than you should expect us to lay out a place setting for your imaginary friend when you’re invited to a dinner party.

      • Jon says:

        Sorry, composed too fast and didn’t proofread enough. My last reply should have included two more words “…that you aren’t entitled to pretend that statement applies to trends THAT WERE’N’T adjusted for the effect their analysis ascribes to ENSO…”.

    • rubber taster says:

      Eric

      Here’s a simple question.

      Would you bet the lives of your children on your denialist position? Say if we made a theoretical bet – that if you were wrong and the earth warmed in accordance with the models in the next ten years – you would forfeit the lives of your children.

      You obviously feel so strongly that AGW is a crock that making such a bet in no way (theoretically) risks the lives of your kids. Would you make the bet? In writing?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Of course I would. CAGW theory fails on so many levels, the biggest threat to my children are in my opinion the consequences of proposals your fellow travellers are trying to force through to mitigate climate change.

        With the Eugenics crisis, by far the greatest harm was done by countries which “heeded the warnings”.

        Isn’t the biofuel catastrophe evidence enough for you that global warming theory has similar potential to do harm? If you think this is the only problem policy your fellow travellers are pushing, think again.

      • rubber taster says:

        Consider it done Pants. Inform your children. I will be there in 10 years.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I doubt it. In 10 years, the global warming scare will be as dead as the 1970s ice age scare.

          You’ll be off pushing some other global threat which requires draconian changes to society to counter.

      • rubber taster says:

        I’ll see you and your kids Two Dicks in 10 years time, that’s a promise – what are their names ? I wanna make sure I don’t make any mistakes.

      • rubber taster says:

        Dont worry Eric, I’ll find out anyway. Reckoning in 10 years time.

      • rubber taster says:

        As you sow Two Dicks, so shall you reap.

        too late to back out now…

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: