Pretty much anything written by Lloyd on climate needs a correction
As I’ve noted recently, The Australian’s Environment Editor Graham Lloyd has a habit of misrepresenting the work of scientists. He has also shown a fondness for citing the work of cranks.
A few months back he cited material from Principa Scientific International. This crank outfit is so extreme that even Christopher Monckton has distanced himself from them. And yet Lloyd believes they are a source of information worthy of a national daily.
Earlier this year The Australian was forced to issue an embarrassing correction after claiming sea level rise was not linked to warming – which it is.
Lloyd shamelessly cherry picks quotes, as this example clearly shows.
So desperate is Lloyd’s attempts to cast doubt on the science, he is now scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing junk “research” in his latest article:
The peer-reviewed research by Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at Waterloo University, was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B.
The findings of Professor Lu’s paper – Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change – are at odds with the consensus view that climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Waterloo University said Professor Lu’s research provided “new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change”. Critics said it might be “nothing more than coincidental correlation”, but it warranted further study.
Chlorofluorocarbons are known to deplete ozone, but conventional thinking is the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide had mainly contributed to global warming.
The claim that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) are the real culprit behind global warming is a tired, old debunked sceptic myth.
The journal, International Journal of Modern Physics B is pretty fringe. Climate Science Watch has already addressed Lu’s paper and notes how he recycles discredited claims.
Still, let’s ponder the implication’s of Lu’s claims. If Lu is correct he has just overturned the scientific paradigm and worthy of a Nobel Prize.
That, or he is a crank with an obsession to prove a discredited theory.
How sad and tawdry.
The Australian has become so partisan on the issue they’re willing to give voice to even the silliest claims.
It seems Lloyd has decided facts and journalistic ethics are for those with a sentimental attachment to reality.
How sad.
How tawdry.
Watching the Deniers 
All five data sets show statistically significant warming since 2000
Statistically significant warming does not necessarily equate to a period, ie ten years, twelve years or fifteen years, it occurs when the warming cannot be attributed to natural variation.
That shows, with great clarity and impact, the real global warming signal.
And, it should put an end to real skeptics claiming that global warming has recently stopped or slowed down, because real skeptics base their beliefs on evidence. I don’t expect it will have much effect on the behavior of fake skeptics
Brilliant thanks for sharing. Either the planet is warming, or its a great big fraud.
Now let me get this straight…if you remove from the data all the things that cause cooling, you end up with data that shows warming. Wow, stop the presses.
I used to read a kids book to my daughter a couple of decades ago which showed that all flowers were red when you ignored all those that weren’t.
No you got it wrong ” if you remove natural variations like ENSO , both warming and cooling, solar variation, again both warming and cooling, and volcano eruptions then what you are left with is the AGW signal.
this is painful
There is something to be seen in the data when short term signals are removed: the signal of the persistent positive forcing of CO2. Sure,you don’t want to see it,but given that you have no compunction about lying in comments,lying to yourself must be easy.
Watts updates his UAH data , baseline 1979/2010
widget
Roy updates his UAH data
Quick eyeball scan, that’s an upwards trend.
Not according to our resident eyeballer of graphs
Mark says:
June 3, 2013 at 1:54 am
“so you are retracting your mostly negative since 2002 comment, I would if I were you.”
No. The trend since 2002 is negative. I didn’t retract that, I just pointed out that I never suggested that fact was important. I only ever mentioned it because you had made the opposite assertion – that it was strongly positive and thought that that, in and of itself, blew Lu out of the water. Error 1.
“so knowing that Lu’s paper was crap, as you now concede you still offered it as, if this paper is true” when you put it up,”
I never said anything one way or the other about the accuracy of the Lu paper. I only ever said it would be funny if it turned out to be true. Error 2.
I haven’t conceded, nor do I know, that Lu’s paper is “crap”. Refer above. I have no opinion one way or t’other and have never expressed an opinion one way or t’other. Error 3.
“contradicting yourself”
I haven’t contradicted myself because I never made any comment about the importance or accuracy of Lu’s statement concerning post 2002 trends. I’ve only ever pointed out that your claims that post 2002 temps trends were positive is inaccurate. Error 4.
“from the paper “What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined ”
yet now he states….”
Merely referring to the paper isn’t the same as endorsing it and most definitely isn’t the same as endorsing the minutia of it. Error 5.
So many ‘errors’. Under different circumstances I’d be tempted to opine that you are an unmitigated, unprincipled liar, utterly incapable of admitting even the most mundane of mistakes. But, since the heretics in the group aren’t permitted such observations, I’ll just remain silent as to your ‘errors’.
mark “No. The trend since 2002 is negative. I didn’t retract that, I just pointed out that I never suggested that fact was important.”
it is the most important statement within the whole paper because without his negative trend since 2002, his curve fitting collapses, his claimed correlation collapses.
John,
I can tell that you think my posts are so good that they need to be repeated over and over but its becoming a bit embarrassing the way you diligently repost my musings holus-bolus into other threads. This hero-worship has to stop.
Your nonsense was relevant here, are you embarrassed? sorry to do that
Dearie me, John…this is getting beyond funny.
I never endorsed the Lu paper. I merely opined that it would be funny if it turned out to be true.
Mark, it would be funny if you had something to reveal that wasn’t unintentional.
gee whiz, Graham LLoyd does not endorse the paper either,
“If correct, the theory would have dramatic implications for forecasting global climate change”
you can beat the paywall by google…. CFCs ‘are the real culprit in global warming’
If I walked into a white Southern Baptist church proclaiming that Christ was gay, I’d get a saner response than the reaction here to Lu. Its just hilarious.
It just struck me as funny that, after 30 yrs of conferences and career-making and papers and arguments and government policy and myriad subsidies and taxes and all the rest, that there was the faintest chance that whole issue had been inadvertently resolved at Montreal. The irony of that possibility was just delicious.
But the fundamentalism here abhors such irony. Instead as soon as it sees the slightest suggestion that the one true faith is under threat, no matter how innocuous that threat, it needs to sally forth and eliminate the threat. And then even more hilariously, if someone doesn’t buy into the whole shock-horror that the faith is questioned, then they too get marked for attack.
I know its an alien concept here, but it really is possible to look at the Lu paper as just a curiousity and to see the funny side of the suggestion that AGW was solved 3 decades ago.
no really, it is possible…take my word for it.
Ironic alright
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/ozone-cfc-debacle-hasty-action-shaky-science
You’re being an ass,Mark. Your analogy and what-if is irrelevant and off-topic.
What is on topic is the state of the media on science reporting. Excuse me if I don’t find it amusing, because it has been going on too long,and has been getting worse. Fossil industry lobbyists now reach right into the heart of reporting. The only national broadsheet is pushing a nonsense,long dismissed,because it has taken an activist and unscientific stance against AGW. These strategic bombings of public discourse by the captive media deserve a reaction.
You attempt to frame the reasonable and uncontroversial reaction of dismay here as ‘fundamentalist’,larding it with your forced mirth…boring,Mark,boring,predictable and trollish. And just bloody ignorant.
“Your analogy and what-if is irrelevant and off-topic.”
Maybe…but still true?
It presumably escaped your notice that my post long preceded the OZ’s upsetting you by passing on information to their readers. Without in any way seeking to endorse Lu’s paper, it was peer reviewed and accepted for publication. Its therefore something that a newspaper might think about passing onto their readership.
Now I know that such heresy would never make it onto the ABC/Drum/Conversation/Guardian on the Yarra/Monthly or any of the sites you approve of. But it is news. As Hearst said “News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising”. And its pretty bloody obvious you didn’t want this printed. Therefore its news.
FFS ABC drum
http://tinyurl.com/k6e6kuw
Another irresistible argument from Mark.
Lu’s paper proposing a mechanism for global warming that fails on simple examination of GCR flux of the past decades is something among the hundreds of science papers published every month that a newspaper which sacked its science journalists a few years ago might pass on to its readership? Climb over a mountain of information to get to a reworked and very obscure nonsense in a B-grade journal?
Golly, you are persuasive!
Yes Nick, I get it. You think that you and those like you should have the right to decide which news is reported and which is suppressed. Very democratic of you.
Then again democracy needs to be suppressed in the name of saving the planet anyway, doesn’t it.
Mark” No. The trend since 2002 is negative”
With the bulk of the fluctuations removed, the continued course of warming over the entire time span (including the last decade) is undeniable. It’s worth noting that in all five adjusted data sets, the last two years (2009 and 2010) are the two hottest.
Lloyd is reduced to trolling rejectionist blogs, or is being fed by some idiot ideologue at the IPA, for junk science to reproduce in Australia’s leading newspaper!!!! Not in some eccentric not-for-profit small town one page news sheet…but in Australia’s only national newspaper! F**king incredible! The paper in original form was debunked years back.
The Australian is a failed newspaper. If they cannot see how pissweak this effort looks…well,obviously,they cannot! They fought tooth and nail to misrepresent media reform,won their race to the bottom,and settle back to their routine deceit. ‘Australian media in crisis’ is an understatement.
Not good but I think that the herald sun outsells it about four to one.
Yeah,but The Oz is national in reach on news-stands…not that that counts as much anymore ‘cos of the ‘net. Still it is a flagship,whatever the decline of the hard-copy.
The Oz always been Rupert’s private megaphone. Its reach is largely provided by the copies it gives away. Hasn’t made a profit at any stage and would have been put down years ago by any proprietor who ran it as a business. It functions as the propaganda arm of the Coalition, but its first priority is to exert Rupert’s power in support of Rupert’s interests (business and otherwise).
Which is why Limited News is the closest thing we have to The Ministry of Truth.
found those who do endorse Lu’s paper,
they are the 3/5 X 5/8 X SFA of Australians who call themselves the climate sceptics party
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/carbon-dioxide-is-innocent-peer-reviewed.html
‘
Hansen ABC unleashed,,, nuclear
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4729882.html
[…] 2013/06/03: Watching The Deniers reports on another case of Lloyd employing single study syndrome to promote a well-rebutted claim that CFCs are responsible […]
At least they got a correction here which is the one sort of nice thing – pretty much all of Andrew Bolt’s pieces require corrections too but I don’t recall ever seeing any despite writing to the paper and pointing out inaccuracies such as the constantly repeated falsehood “No global warming for 16 years” claim.
[…] The story first appeared in the Australian by Graham Lloyd on Monday 3 June (see here) […]