War on science to begin? Climate sceptic angling for science portfolio in Abbott government

We experienced a ominous precursor to the Australian summer this week.

Over 1200 firefighters battled 60 fires in New South Wales as temperatures reached the low 30’s. Sadly seven fire fighters were injured fighting the blazes and a number of homes were lost.

According to the NSW Rural Fire Service it was “unusual to have so many intense fires so close together”.

However over the past decades the Australian fire season has grown longer, beginning earlier and ending later – a direct consequence of a warming world.

As the planet heats, the Australian electorate saw fit to vote into office a party not merely opposed to the “carbon tax”, but riddled with sceptics.

One of the prime candidates to take on the science portfolio was the Liberal member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella. However it looks as though Mirabella will lose her seat to an independent, and thus not take on this role in the Abbott government.

Noted for her “caustic style”, Mirabella’s position on the science could at best be called “luke warm” as the blog No Fibs reports:

Asked about climate change at a Mansfield forum, Mirabella indicated her belief that the problem was largely caused by natural warming, but she conceded people were also having an impact.

[Note: The Age reports today it is over for Mirabella and she will lose her seat]

As the fate of Mirabella looks certain, another Liberal has put their hand up for the role: one Dr. Dennis Jensen.

In case there was any doubts about the Abbott government’s position on climate change it is worth noting that Jensen is a prominent climate sceptic. As the Sydney Morning Herald notes:

Dr Jensen has made headlines by questioning the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Dr Jensen believes carbon dioxide is contributing somewhat to global temperatures, but not as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is suggesting. Moreover, Dr Jensen does not think governments should be taking urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Jensen is also a fan of Lord Christopher Monckton, the climate sceptic who believes Obama’s birth certificate was faked and propagates the idea the UN and climate scientists are plotting to take over the world and establish a one-world-government:

The colourful Englishman, Lord Christopher Monckton, who toured Australia to debunk the “bogus science” of global warming, was closer to the mark, Dr Jensen suggested. 

“Most of the stuff [Lord Monckton] says is entirely reasonable,” Dr Jensen said. 

“Some of it I don’t agree with but on the whole a lot of what he says is in my view correct.”

Yes, because a science minister should be taking his views from a conspiracy theorist and someone known for fantasizing about secret plots.

Jensen makes no secret of the fact he rejects the scientific consensus. In a June 2013 blog entry on his website, Jensen dimisses the work of the scientific community:

Worse even than “pal review” is where editors and reviewers of a specific scientific predisposition will attempt to reject any paper with a contrary viewpoint. Phil Jones wrote of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report AR4 and of some peer-reviewed papers he did not agree with: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” This is quite stunning, and shows the potential for perversion of a process that even when operating without systemic bias has its problems.

Hopefully, this will give a bit of a better idea of the peer review process, and of some of the shortcomings of the process, and that caveat emptor exists even regarding peer-reviewed literature. Remember, the consensus view of the fraud of Piltdown Man as being the missing link was accepted science for decades.

Note the reference to Pltdown Man – a standard argument used by Creationists to discredit evolutioinary theory.

In a 2008 article in The Australian (where else) Jensen implied climate scientists acted like the mafia:

VESTED interests have hijacked the climate debate, and taken Australia’s future hostage. The ransom they demand? Simple agreement or, at the very least, compliance.

Voices of dissent face derision. Legitimate questions are met with ridicule. But with many of the squabbling forces of power in this country now apparently united in their enthusiasm for an emissions trading scheme, it is more important than ever that we go back and examine the basis of their campaigns.

Conspiracy theories, arguments used by creationists, contempt for the peer review process and scientists.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of person Australia must have to oversee the science portfolio.

237 thoughts on “War on science to begin? Climate sceptic angling for science portfolio in Abbott government

  1. john byatt says:

    “As the only PhD qualified scientist in this parliament, I have watched with dismay as the local and international scientific communities and our elected leaders have taken a seemingly benign scientific theory and turned it into a regulatory monolith designed to solve an environmental misnomer. With a proper understanding of the science, I believe we would not even be entering into this carbon tax debate. To put it simply, the carbon tax, with all its regulatory machinations, is built on quicksand. Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void. I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates.” Dennis Jensen

    Dennis Jensen, legend in his own lunchtime appealing to his own non-authority and single-handedly dismissing the honest, dispassionate work of tens of thousands of real scientists from around the world. At this point I should point out that Dennis Jensen does indeed have a Phd….in materials engineering on ceramics. Next time it starts raining cups and plates I’ll be sure to look him up. Oh, and he is also tied in with the Lavoisier Group and according to Wikipedia, boycotted parliament the day Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generation. I know that isn’t relevant to climate change but hey, if he’s a racist arsehole then everyone has the right to know about it. Anyway, I strongly urge my readers to check out the rest of his parliamentary rant. It is a cracker. Every single paragraph is filled with…well….crap. Who voted for this clown?

    @ uknowispeaksense

  2. john byatt says:

    No it is not funny

    Tweet from @spogburn in Boulder, 2013′s missing Arctic ice located: after a phase change it’s headed down Boulder Creek towards #NSIDC.

    NSIDC shut down due flooding

  3. How do we encourage our respected scientific institutions to be more vocal on the consensus among climate scientists, to counter what the media present to the public as a “balanced” view?

    • Nick says:

      It’s difficult!. News Ltd have destroyed trust between scientists and themselves with relentless misrepresentation in science-based stories and limited rights of reply. Timely right of reply is non-existent.

      Last year scientists boycotted interviews with News Ltd. sadly this plays into News’ hands: they can pursue their anti-AGW agenda with even less interaction with reality. Science coverage is restricted to the ABC,which is conveniently further marginalised by the tabloids systematic accusations of lefty/greenie/watermelon-ism.

      ‘The Australian’ regularly features science-relevant opinion from anti-AGW campaigners and ideologues masquerading as dispassionate experts.

      They are deliberately destroying dispassionate discourse in this country.

  4. john byatt says:

    The Nationals have re-elected Warren Truss as federal leader, meaning he will serve as deputy prime minister in the Coalition government.
    Joyce elected truss’s deputy

    so the four at the top Abbott, Bishop, Truss and Joyce all anti science climate change deniers,

    all we need is for Jensen to be the science minister and the goons show is complete

    • john byatt says:

      and climate change denier Nigel Scullion elected as LNP leader in the senate

      Abbott is gathering the yes men around him to uphold his own denial

  5. K largo says:

    So the highest qualified scientist in parliament wants to be minister for science? As a scientist, I say good on him. My recollection is that the last time we had a genuine scientist in the role was Dr Barry Jones.

    Science is much more than climate change. Here we have a man with a PhD in Materials Science and Physics, He has worked as a research scientist at CSIRO and DSTO and yet he is considered not qualified to be minister for science?

    Who is waging the war on science here? Is it WTD?

    • john byatt says:

      highest qualified in ceramics, knows sweet f**k all about climatology

      minister for cups and saucers?

    • zoot says:

      He’s not the highest qualified scientist, he’s the highest qualified engineer. There is a difference.
      BTW, Barry Jones studied arts and law, although he does have the honorary degrees of Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Laws and Doctor of Science. He was a school teacher.
      I wonder why you think he was a scientist? Probably the same reason we are pointing out that Jensen is not a scientist.

      • john byatt says:

        Barry was a polymath

        A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, “having learned much”),[1] is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; they are known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems.

        jensen is a polywaffle

    • K largo says:

      You missed the point. We are talking about science. Science is more than climate change. And to call him an engineer rather than a scientist would be considered an insult to some scientists as Jensen has a BAppSc degree from RMIT, a MSc from Melb and a PhD in Materials Science and Physics from Monash.

      He worked for CSIRO and DSTO. Do you know what those letters stand for?

      • john byatt says:

        give us a break

        Jensen: I worked at CSIRO in Geelong as a research scientist in textile physics, looked at the physics of things like yarn making, how to actually improve the material properties of that. Then I moved on to DSTO, I was doing submarine operations research.
        Hall: What bought on the great shift?
        Jensen: Textile physics didn’t greatly excite me. It was predominantly wool work. I saw wool as a dying industry, so I thought I better get out of this, so got the job with DSTO. I had been interested in defence as a kid, was there from 1999 until elected.

        – See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/30/dennis-jensen-explains-how-carbon-abatement-will-send-us-broke-and-why-hed-resist-a-consensus-on-gay-marriage/#sthash.HJ7yZl8l.dpuf

        • J Giddeon says:

          “I saw wool as a dying industry, ”

          Do you think he meant ‘dyeing industry’?

        • K largo says:

          Does any of that change the fact that Jensen is the most qualified scientist in parliament? Does it change the fact that Science is more than climate change?

          Here is a scientist putting his hand up for the science portfolio and you decry it. Is this the war on science that the topic heading is referring to?

        • Nick says:

          Don’t be arch,largo. Jensen brings more than his past science work with him. His ideological stance is clear. He is an ideological opponent of the findings of climate science…his opposition is not scientific,it is dogmatic.

          And he is a nut. Even conditionally endorsing a crank like Monckton is evidence of poor judgement.

    • If Dennis Jensen, who as far as I can tell has never even published a paper, claims that a whole branch of science of over 20 disciplines, is unscientific and that tens of thousands of experts in those fieds have commited scientific fraud, but is willing to accept the opinions of non-experts like Monckton as scientific fact, then he is no scientist, despite his alleged credentials. If you support him, then I doubt very much that you are a scientist either.

      The day that Dennis Jensen writes a cogent scientific paper that backs up even one of his claims, I’ll take another look. Until then, he will remain a blowhard self-interested, anti-science quack whom the Dunning-Kruger effect has truly taken hold.

      As for qualifications to be a science minister, the most important quality is having the ability to defer to independent expert opinion. Dennis Jensen thinks he, with his cup and saucer phd, knows more about climate science than all the atmospheric physicists, chemists, glaciologists, biologists, statisticians, oceanographers etc in the world. As a science minister, he would actualy be worse than Mirabella. She’s just an idiot. Jensen is a self-absorbed ideologically driven sociopath.

  6. john byatt says:

    “It reached 40 degrees in Julia Creek yesterday – it’s the earliest the state has recorded 40 degrees after winter,” he said.

    “The previous record was reaching 40 degrees on September [12, 2010] and yesterday we broke that by one day.”

    we need to solve the problem of summer solar energy going into the melting of the Arctic ice pack while temp data remains near zero, this energy fails to get into the global temperature record.

    what it may mean is that the first year the Arctic melts out could reveal the true level of warming and scare the shit out of us

    • K largo says:

      The “record” comes from Julia Creek airport. It has 13 years of records. It is not a Climate reference station. It is running 1.5C higher in September than Julia Creek Post Office which it replaced. Julia Creek Post Office, although apparently cooler than Julia Creek airport recorded 39.0 on September 2nd in 1975!

      Picking isolated observations here or there doesn’t add anything.

  7. K largo says:

    John, Read what I wrote.

    It might be the earliest it was 40, but climatologically it has zero meaning. If you get the record by using a station that has only 13 years of data (not enough for climate trends remember) and 1.5C warmer than the station it replaced then it might be interesting, but it means little when the station it replaced recorded effectively the same temperature 38 years ago on the second of September!

    • john byatt says:

      was it the earliest after winter date to reach 40C anywhere in QLD or was it not?

      if you have proof that 40C was reached earlier in Queensland than this record then enlighten us.

      and put up your link that proves that BOM is wrong to declare this record,

      • K largo says:

        You just don’t get it.

        I don’t deny that one of the 13 year old reporting stations set a new Queensland record.

        You mine for facts which have zero climatological meaning and then give it a climatological significance – in this case arctic melting. You could fill this blog with lots of these interesting media events but zero climatological meaning. Hot, cold, dry, wet, calm, windy. There is a story nearly every day. Back in the 1970’s I could have found one every day too.

        • john byatt says:

          you just do not get it, the last early record was not there, it could be anywhere in the state, it is the fact not the place
          Qld setting a new early 40C has lots of climatology meaning. it is exactly the type of event that climatology predicts will occur,

          You deny any climatology meaning for the Arctic in its present state,

          obviously no matter what happens you are going to remain in denial, no one can help you with that,

        • K largo says:

          Not my denial, more like your Climate illiteracy.

          If a weather station is commenced which is unrepresentative or placed in a warmer environment than any station that has ever been placed before, then of course you will set the sort of record you quote. I am not saying this is the case here, but before you can determine that this Interesting fact has any climatologically meaning, further investigation needs to be made, the minimum being what I posted.

          You can just about have any figure you want from numerous stations, but not all are accepted as part of the climatological record.

          Julia Creek began reporting from its present site at the airport 13 years ago. Its September average is significantly higher than the old town site which is no surprise since the new observation site according to BOM coordinates is within metres of about 4000sq mtrs of black ashphalt. Probably for this reason Julia Creek is not part of the Climate reference Network although its records go back to 1912.

          Two of the three nearest climate reference stations, west, east and north recorded a higher temperature on 2 September 1975 than they did on 12th this year. Boulia to the west recorded a max 0.5C higher on the 12th this year than in 1975, but it too moved from the town to the airport in 1999. This all seems to vindicate my original observation that Julia Creek with 13 years of record is substantially warmer than Julia Creek post office which recorded 39 as early as 2 September in 1975 and that therefore it is an interesting observational fact that it recorded 40 on the 12th but climatologically insignificant. It was hotter in the area, 10 days earlier in September nearly 40 years ago.

          John, why do think raw observation data is adjusted to produce a meaningful climate record? If it is unrepresentative of the long term record it is either not used or adjusted down or up. Read the reports from BOM re climate observations.

          And John, stop being in denial. This newsworthy fact is just that, newsworthy, nothing more.

        • john byatt says:

          If you can prove that anywhere in QLD has recorded 40C at an earlier after winter date than 11 sept 2013 then give us a link.

          put up or , as they say you are waffling

        • john byatt says:

          and of course I am referring to BOM

        • K largo says:

          I was commenting on your continued posting of weather events, facts which have zero climatological meaning and pretending there is significance. That is climate illiteracy.

          As I said there is a story nearly every day. As there was 40 years ago.

        • john byatt says:

          imagine the kerfuffle

          BOM 1st sept 2013,

          a met stn today at ###### recorded a temperature of 38.5DegC
          but a little gully about 40km down the road has always recorded 1.5Degc warmer than that so today we declare on 1st sept, qld has officialy recorded it’s first after winter temperature of 40Degc

          it does not work like that K largo,

        • john byatt says:

          K largo says:
          September 14, 2013 at 6:03 am
          I was commenting on your continued posting of weather events, facts which have zero climatological meaning and pretending there is significance. That is climate illiteracy.

          As I said there is a story nearly every day. As there was 40 years ago.

          this is ignorance of the documented increase in climate records and extreme events

          the second amazon major 100 in 100 year drought is not there but here are a few
          http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/category.html#Extreme+Weather

          of course global warming and climate change will have an effect on weather, that is the whole effin point

        • john byatt says:

          1 in 100 of course

        • john byatt says:

          another record for QLD

          Rockhampton has just had record heat for this early in the season, 36.1 degrees on Thursday. In 75 years of records the Capricornia town had only been this hot as early as September 22 in 1943.

          http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/qld-breaks-early-season-heat-record/2671327.aspx

        • K largo says:

          If you are going to mine for inconsequential facts, then at least check the story and the data.

          On September 22 1943, 70 years ago, it was 37.1 a whole 1.0 C hotter than the reported 36.1 for this September. I wonder how hot it could have been 100 years ago?

        • john byatt says:

          comprehension fail

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john said “comprehension fail”

          It’s nice to see you admitting it!

        • john byatt says:

          test results

          comprehension101

          k Largo D minus

          Bill Jamison D minus

          FAIL

        • john byatt says:

          Two blogs, The Climate sceptics party and just grounds are inhabited by fundamentalist christian and creationists, God talk and christian justification for their homophobia, anti muslim and scepticism.

          they also brag about going to sites such as ABC drum and commenting, even disclosing what they have posted there,

          they nearly all use a different name there but it is quite obvious who they are, they even sock puppet each other,

          So yes creationists and fundamentalists do go to climate blogs and pretend to be
          rational sceptics.

          bill’s reply is typical of how a fundamentalist would reply when one of his denier mates are trashed, cannot come up with anything rational so just tosses poo

          “Bill Jamison says:
          September 15, 2013 at 11:12 pm
          john said “comprehension fail”

          It’s nice to see you admitting it!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john “yes I’m a creationist that posts on climate blogs and pretends to be
          rational”

          That explains a lot!

          You really are a Right-Wing Authoritarian follower of the first order jb. Everything that guy said in his book you do.

        • john byatt says:

          “Pretends to be rational”
          what? rational things like the planet is self regu;ating for temperature which is the creationists belief, that god put fossil fuel in the ground for our use and would not let it hurt us

          rational? delusional more like it

  8. J Giddeon says:

    This is all rather premature folks. Jensen hasn’t been appointed. Abbott hasn’t said a word about it. All that has happened is that Jensen has said he’d like the job. You are probably all getting yourselves in a tizzy over nothing.

    It’d be like me getting frothy at the mouth over Rudd becoming PM again since he has apparently said he’d like the job. It seems he didn’t screw the country enough in his first two iterations and needs more time to do a thorough job of it.

    • john byatt says:

      we are discussing the absurdity of jensen being the science minister

      you seem to think that because he denies climate change and links to blog science as his authorities he would be excellent in the job
      we think that he would be crap

      • J Giddeon says:

        “you seem to think that because he denies climate change and links to blog science as his authorities he would be excellent in the job”

        And you base that conclusion about my opinions based on,what? Like most of your opinions, your fevered imagination it seems.

        • john byatt says:

          “When the ALP introduced all their climate policies,particularly the tax, they thought Australia could be an example to the world and that, somehow, the world would joyously follow that example.
          It may yet turn out that they were right…but not in ways they thought.”

          that sums you up

      • K largo says:

        Yes indeed. You are discussing the absurdity of the most qualified scientist in parliament putting up his hand to be science minister.To say that is absurd is absurdity in itself. War on science?

  9. john byatt says:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-13/connor-labor-should-keep-a-cool-head-on-climate-change/4956440

    The election was far from a “referendum on the carbon tax”. Labor should stand by Australia’s commitment to keep global warming below two degrees, writes John Connor.

    • K largo says:

      I still haven’t received a real answer to this comment posted on an earlier thread:

      I received a pamphlet in the letterbox during the campaign from the ALP.
      It said in big letters :

      “Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax”

      On the reverse side it says:

      “Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax – saving the average family $380.”
      Note “have removed” not “will remove”

      Why are we still discussing removing the carbon tax? I have here in black and white, authorised by ALP Senator Louise Pratt, that “Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax”. You mean to say Labor’s claim was not true?

      • john byatt says:

        you will have to copy paste, triggers spam here for some reason

        watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/rudd-dumps-carbon-tax-leaves-abbott-punch-drunk-media-round-up-1/

  10. john byatt says:

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2521

    These are the sort of rains one expects on the coast in a tropical storm, not in the interior of North America! The rains were due to a strong, slow-moving upper level low pressure system to the west of Colorado that got trapped to the south of an unusually strong ridge of high pressure over Western Canada. This is the same sort of odd atmospheric flow pattern that led to the most expensive flood disaster in Canadian history, the $5.3 billion Calgary flood of mid-June this summer

    • BBD says:

      But it’s just weather john!

      I mean how could a warmer troposphere possibly hold more moisture? Why would atmospheric circulation patterns change during the warmest decade in the instrumental record?!

      Sheer alarmism!

      /sarc

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Yes it IS weather.

        Notice that’s not even all of Colorado that’s flooding but only the one mountain area. The warm moisture is being pushed up over the mountains and as you hopefully know that wrings out the moisture and produces rain. In this case a lot of it. Unusual? Absolutely? Climate change? Not hardly.

        • Biblical? One in a thousand years? Place your bets.

        • john byatt says:

          research into this event is a certainty

          if it is found that climate change played no part in this event we will accept that

          if the research finds that climate change did play a part then bill will still deny it,

          as usual bill appeals to his own authority “Climate change'”not hardly(sic)

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The sad part is that you guys actually believe you can take an event like this that is localized and blame climate change on it. As if there have never been serious flooding in this area or even the world before now.

          Colorado has a long and tragic history of flash flood events, most notably the Big Thomson Canyon Flood in 1976, which resulted in 139 deaths after a slow-moving thunderstorm dumped a foot of rain in just four and a half hours, causing a massive wall of water to blast through the canyon. ”
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/colorado-flooding-climate-change_n_3926284.html

          http://www.coemergency.com/2010/01/historical-colorado-flood-events.html

        • john byatt says:

          bill you are not at WUWT now we check out links here

          you missed a bit ” According to the NWS forecast office in Denver/Boulder, the river stage at the North Fork of the Big Thompson river so far has exceeded the Big Thompson Flood of 1976 by more than one foot.”

          hey did you tell your friends that praying to god was ludicrous before or after you thanked them?

          lol

        • Bill Jamison says:

          jb lots of things contribute the the flood level of a river or stream including the amount of development in an area. Obviously asphalt and cement don’t allow water to penetrate into the ground and therefore it becomes runoff and contributes to flooding. Did you read the links and see how often that area suffers from catastrophic flooding similar to what is happening now? It’s unusual to be sure but not unheard of and most of the floods occurred a long time ago long before GHG emissions rose to the levels they are today.

          As I’ve told you jb I was raised to be polite. I don’t insult people when they say things like “god bless you” or “I’ll pray for you”. Instead I simply thank them. I’m not one of the asshole atheists that have to go around telling people my beliefs and insult them when they are simply being nice and thoughtful. Obviously you are one of those people based on your comments.

          Do you say “god bless you” or even just “bless you” when someone sneezes? I usually say “bless you” and it’s out of habit and common courtesy. Certainly no religious message or connotation on my part especially considering the origin of it. When I hear about someone that is suffering I will often tell them that I’ll keep them in my thoughts but of course I don’t tell them that I’ll pray for them because that would be a lie.

    • K largo says:

      The way unusual weather events are reported here and interpreted you would think severe weather is a recent phenomenon.

      Why not go back 200 years?

      “1809 – 1811 There was a drought in New South Wales, Australia. Crops were destroyed. There was a serious water shortage. The drought was said to be the worst since the drought of 1789-1791. In 2 March 1811 in New South Wales, Australia, the drought destroyed the maize crop; [water] tanks empty; water sold for 6d. per full pail.”

      It wasn’t much better in other parts of the world. A few examples of extreme weather:

      “Towards the end of January 1810, a dreadful gale of wind from the southeast struck Ochotsk in Siberia, Russia. This gale lasted two days; waters of Ochotsk rose 12 feet, flowed over the tops of the houses, and a transport was driven into the middle of town.

      The four famines of 1810, 1811, 1846, and 1849 in China are said to have taken a toll of not less than 45,000,000 lives.

      On 6 March 1810, a storm at Cadiz, Spain destroyed thirty-six ships.

      In 1810 in the northwest provinces of India, there was a famine. Between 2% and 8% of the population died. In one central district alone, 90,000 people died of famine.

      On 20 June 1810, it was reported that a forest in India, 23 miles broad and 65 miles long, was set fire and burned for five weeks; 50 villages destroyed. [The same incident was reported in December 1812.]

      In November 1810, an exceptional flood occurred in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania in the United States. This flood was referred to as the Pumpkin Flood.”

      From “A chronological listing of Weather events” by James A Marusek

      • The plural of anecdote is not data.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Alarmists love to take incidents and make them into something substantial instead of recognizing them for what they are: localized events. It’s confirmation bias at its best. Heatwave? Climate change! Big snowfall? Climate change! Drought? Climate change! Floods? Climate change! Devastating hurricane? Climate change! Unusually low hurricane activity? Climate change!

          It never ends. Anything and everything is “proof” of climate change to you guys. Except normal weather of course and that’s what is happening all over the world every day but you ignore it.

          You’re so intent on finding climate change in every event hoping for disasters that you ignore anything that doesn’t fit your goals.

        • The house continues to tilt the table. Stupid punters still play.

    • J Giddeon says:

      Because if Australia stops exporting coal, no other nation will pick up the slack, right?

      • Nick says:

        Fantastic! We are chained to the stone,eh,J.Giddeon? We are all in a race to the bottom….not only environmentally,but in terms of managing resource depletion.

        You realise this competition by nations to export has compromised sovereignty, the ability to act in the national interest. And that compounds into sovereign governments not being able to act in their collective interest,unless you think transnationals now are the only interests to be favored. We all have to wait for the market to send the right price signals to work on issues we already know are overdue addressing. Personally,I do not equate the interests of energy shareholders with those of the whole community.

        State governments are now nothing more than spruikers for transnationals and their demands to access our resources,working under threat of losing employment and revenue to each other or to some other nation where the deal is allegedly better.

        • J Giddeon says:

          The main premise of the article was that coal creates, according to the author, untold damage to “health, contributes to climate change, risks groundwater supplies”. Now, whether you think that’s accurate or not, the point is that the coal that does this alleged damage is going to be burnt irrespective of whether it comes out of Australian soil or African mines, or south america or the USA.

          Now we can bask in the moral rectitude of not exporting our coal but it isn’t going to make one iota of difference to the health of those in the importing countries or to GW or to groundwater.

          Its very easy to call for the futile gesture when you’re cloistered in the academia but I suspect those at the coal-face have a different view as to our nation interest.

        • If cashing in on the destruction of the environment is what you are advocating then you are moronic beyond belief.

        • john byatt says:

          morally bankrupt

          if we do not destroy civilization then someone else will

        • Nick says:

          “Those at the coal face” are as you say, ‘pawns’…the coal industry in Queensland has shed 8,000 jobs even while the lick-spittle Campbell Newman calls for federal government to get off his back to he can ‘take Queensland forward’…they are selling a serious distortion of reality in their framing of economic outcomes.

          Bugger the moral rectitude, most of the profit will be offshored, the employment is short-term and only a few will really manage their ‘winnings’ carefully…we end up with further compromised environments and ongoing management of damage,while big miners have bought their way out of pesky taxation by buying he elections. And the market is experiencing oversupply a lot of the time,so half of Newmans fevered ‘vision thing’ is air….really, Newman and mining cheersquads fail, lacking the imagination to manage, plan for scarcity and invest in post-coal energy networks He’s a bandit in a suit.

        • J Giddeon says:

          ““Those at the coal face” are as you say, ‘pawns’”

          Oh Nick, the arrogance of it all. These workers, according to you, aren’t able to work out for themselves that their evil pursuit of a job is destroying the planet, so their betters will just have to make the decisions for them. Surely they’ll understand that going jobless is the best thing they can do for their planet and they won’t mind one iota that those demanding this sacrifice have no intention of reciprocating.

          “while big miners have bought their way out of pesky taxation by buying he elections. ”

          Actually the miners avoided the super-profits tax by playing the ALP for the fools they were.

          “And the market is experiencing oversupply a lot of the time”

          So more evidence that us leaving the evil coal in the ground won’t make the slightest difference to the environment.

          “plan for scarcity and invest in post-coal energy networks”

          Well since we won’t run out of coal for a couple of hundred years, let’s leave the planning to our great great great grandkids who’ll have access to much better technology than us. Who knows, maybe our grandkids will work out how to make renewables efficient and then we won’t need to worry about it at all.

        • john byatt says:

          yer stick to politics because you are crap on the science, actually you are crap on that also.

          why is it so hard for you to get through that head of yours that if you share the environment then you also share the responsibility for it,

          future generations, your descendants will piss on your grave, and if like you they inherit two dicks that will be a lot of urine

        • Bill Jamison says:

          What energy source is used to generate the electricity that you’re using right now john? Mine is natural gas. Either way it’s probably generating GHG emissions.

        • john byatt says:

          concern troll

        • Bill Jamison says:

          hypocrite exposed.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “why is it so hard for you to get through that head of yours that if you share the environment then you also share the responsibility for it,”

          Yep, share. But what was being proposed is that Australia take unilateral action. The pain wasn’t to be shared, the pain was all ours. Just like having a carbon tax to save the world while the rest of the world looked on askance.

          I’d be entirely in favour of cut backs here or there to reduce CO2 emissions IF the whole world signed up ie shared the responsibility. But we haven’t got that and never will. (Incidentally I think you’ll find the current government is also clear that they’d sign up to a world-wide enforceable emission reduction scheme if one could be cobbled together.)

          but what these people want is the warm inner glow of australia doing what they consider to be the right thing while ensuring that the Australians who suffer the pain of the futile gesture aren’t them.

          Cut back on coal exports, close the industry completely, send thousands onto the dole queue, permanently reduce the nation’s wealth. That’s all OK by them because its for the good of the planet dontchya know.
          Close the Climate Commission, even suggest that grants to useless academic research should be examined and they react like the world is about to end.

          As I said, their attitude is that the pain ought to be shared by everyone other than them.

        • john byatt says:

          first, do you accept the science because if not then this is all just a rant to overcome your cognitive dissonance

          it is alarmist nonsense,

          we have hardly noticed the carbon price

          it was having an effect

          we have a lousy five percent target for 2020 abbotts DAP will increase emissions more , up to 16% by 2020

          what is UK target for one

          you want to steal from future generations

          and your only argument is that you see us doing all the hard work

          leave a note for your great grandchildren and tell them why you did not give a fuck about them

        • J Giddeon says:

          Mr B

          The article wasn’t talking about the carbon tax. It was calling for the wholesale cessation of coal exports and by extension the closure of the coal mining industry and all coal-fired power plants – how could we burn coal while telling the rest of the world to stop it?

        • john byatt says:

          “The article wasn’t talking about the carbon tax. It was calling for the wholesale cessation of coal exports and by extension the closure of the coal mining industry and all coal-fired power plants – how could we burn coal while telling the rest of the world to stop it?”

          cite

          http://theconversation.com/expanding-coal-exports-is-bad-news-for-australia-and-the-world-17937

  11. john byatt says:

    @Hotwhopper

    Suicide notes from a lost civilization

    Goodell’s final paragraph is
    In a more rational world, of course, we wouldn’t need any more IPCC assessments. We would have listened to the scientists, built a global consensus and forged international agreements to reduce carbon pollution and head off the risk of climate catastrophe. But in the 25 years since the IPCC was formed, global carbon pollution is rising faster than ever. Future readers may view IPCC reports not as landmarks of scientific inquiry, but as suicide notes from a lost civilization.

    I think that future readers will see our greed and religious ideology but nothing will change.

    as civilization goes down the gurgler the likes of bill eric and co will still be in denial

    • john byatt says:

      denial tango

    • Bill Jamison says:

      “as civilization goes down the gurgler the likes of bill eric and co will still be in denial”

      And if it happens you’ll be ecstatic that you were right.

      But it’s not going to happen. Sorry to disappoint you jb but arctic sea ice didn’t fall off a cliff like you said it would this year and temperature hasn’t risen again this year and sea level hasn’t drowned any cities. I know you’re terribly disappointed that none of these things happened but try to see the bright side.

  12. Lars Karlsson says:

    A prospective minister of science who reads “climategate”? That’s depressing…

    • And one who ignores the judgement on nine separate inquiries.😦

    • J Giddeon says:

      Given that Ms Gillard lists climategate as one of the issues that destroyed the erstwhile consensus on the need to price carbon, it probably makes sense for budding ministers and indeed anyone interested in politics to familiarise themselves with that mournful episode.

      • Multiple choice test on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy (Climategate)

        Question 1. How many independent enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic were held? Is it:

        a) 7 b) 9 c) 12

        Question 2. Which is the closest estimate to the total cost of these enquiries? Is it:

        a) £1M b) £4M c) £10M

        Question 3. How many found in favour of the contrarians/sceptics/deniers? Is it:

        a) 0 b) 0 c) 0

  13. john byatt says:

    Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1990.html

  14. john byatt says:

    On jensen’s anti climate facebook

    headgear, Marohasy ” greenhouse gases cannot warm the ocean”

    Jennifer Marohasy I thought it was greenhouse gases that were responsible for global warming? But you say: oceans account for the warming? Do you mean that the greenhouse gases are warming the oceans that are causing the global warming? Except that there is a problem here: the radiation from the greenhouse gases can’t warm the ocean.
    September 13 at 10:02pm

    Jack Williams Oh really Jennifer. Surely youve run out of irrelevant nits to pick by now.
    September 13 at 10:04pm

    Jennifer Marohasy Just explain to me how the greenhouse gases warm the ocean? This is central to your argument? In fact it could be a big flaw in your argument!
    September 13 at 10:06pm · 1

    • J Giddeon says:

      I think you’ll find that her views are based on this article….

      http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “this is 2013 not 2000” so I’ll give you a link to a blog post from 2006.

          Uh, okay.

        • john byatt says:

          Here is another of watts dunces still living in 2000

          Eyal Porat has never been for a swim in a body of water and says:
          September 13, 2013 at 10:13 pm
          This is amazing:
          These people make assumptions about mechanisms they do not refer to or explain (i.e. the warming of the oceans by the atmosphere), then build their theory upon it. And voilla! we have a solution!
          The simplest first grade test will tell them this is wrong. You cannot heat the oceans from above.
          This is bad science and it really makes me saddened. And to see the degrees of these people… All professors… sigh.
          Eyal

        • john byatt says:

          that was from a new post @hotwhopper,

        • john byatt says:

          “You cannot heat the ocean from above”

          that would not be from 2000 though, probably from 1400

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The ocean is ALWAYS heated from above – by the sun.

          Increased GHGs reduce the emission from the ocean. It’s right there in your RC link:

          “Along comes some extra LW forcing (due to greenhouse gases or clouds etc.), and according to the figure, this reduces the difference between the skin and bulk temperature and reduces the rate at which this area would be cooling (and thus causes anomalous heating).”

          Another way of saying it is that the ocean retains more of the heat it absorbed from the sun. There’s a huge difference between a cloudy sky and a clear sky, significantly larger impact than GHGs on ocean heating.

          Ironically the reduction of arctic sea ice results in more ocean heat being lost since there’s more surface area exposed as temperatures drop below freezing. It’s thought that is one reason why winters are stormier in the NH when there is less arctic sea ice:

          “Sea ice loss has driven increased energy transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, enhanced warming and moistening of the lower troposphere, decreased the strength of the surface temperature inversion, and increased lower-tropospheric thickness; all of these changes are most pronounced in autumn and early winter (September–December).”
          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00063.1

        • J Giddeon says:

          “this is 2013 not 2000”

          Did ocean heat transfers work differently in 2000 compared to now?

        • john byatt says:

          loved this denier comment at the missoulian link

          Woger
          “Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980, and sea Ice concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980! Since satellite measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. There is no sign of the main stream media picking up on this important news. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.”

        • john byatt says:

          J Giddeon says:
          September 15, 2013 at 9:07 am
          “this is 2013 not 2000″

          Did ocean heat transfers work differently in 2000 compared to now?

          according to Marahosy they did

          Jennifer Marohasy I thought it was greenhouse gases that were responsible for global warming? But you say: oceans account for the warming? Do you mean that the greenhouse gases are warming the oceans that are causing the global warming? Except that there is a problem here: the radiation from the greenhouse gases can’t warm the ocean.
          September 13 at 10:02pm

          Jack Williams Oh really Jennifer. Surely youve run out of irrelevant nits to pick by now.
          September 13 at 10:04pm

          Jennifer Marohasy Just explain to me how the greenhouse gases warm the ocean? This is central to your argument? In fact it could be a big flaw in your argument!
          September 13 at 10:06pm ·

          the point is that we have known about how greenhouse gases cause the ocean to retain heat since at least 2005 using empirical evidence

          why do we need to explain the obvious? these replies are typical to what you get from creationists

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “retain heat” not warm from above as you stated jb

          Hopefully you actually learned something…if that’s possible.

        • john byatt says:

          Bill Jamison says:
          September 15, 2013 at 9:26 am
          “retain heat” not warm from above as you stated jb

          Hopefully you actually learned something…if that’s possible.

          link? or did you read the quote from the denier as being mine?

          at least you now know where the heat from lack of Arctic ice will go,

          as soon as i read your comment methinks ‘ this idiot believes that the heat will be lost to space,’

          seems once again I was correct

        • J Giddeon says:

          From Mr B

          ““You cannot heat the ocean from above”

          that would not be from 2000 though, probably from 1400

          From the commentary I posted above by Stevenson:

          How the Oceans Get Warm
          Warming the ocean is not a simple matter, not like heating a small glass of water. The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.

        • john byatt says:

          its the sun stupid

    • john byatt says:

      “It would be just as odd to have a vegetarian as Minister for Agriculture, a pacifist as Minister for Defence or a climate change sceptic as Minister for Science.”

  15. john byatt says:

    Of course they never pretend to be atheists and sprout crap on climate change blogs,

    wannabet?

    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/christianity-climate-change-sceptics-god-green

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Why would they pretend to be atheists when they post? It’s like you’re seeing another conspiracy at work jb. It amazes me that you continue to think that fundamentalist christians would deny their faith simply to post on climate blogs. But then you continually make an hom comments about people’s religious beliefs that have nothing to do with what they post. It’s what you do. Obviously it’s an obsession of yours and you might want to seek professional help. When you spend hours reading someone’s personal Facebook page trying to prove they are a christian then there is something wrong with you john. It’s creepy and obsession behavior. Definitely puts you into the “creepy stalker” category.

      • john byatt says:

        “When you spend hours reading someone’s personal Facebook page”

        “twenty seconds from top to bottom”

        “trying to prove they are a christian ”

        discovering that they are a christian after just claiming to be an atheist

        you still have not replied

        Did you tell your friends that praying to a god was ludicrous before or after you thanked them for their prayers?

        lol

        • J Giddeon says:

          I had to go back over previous posts to find out what all the kerfuffle was about here. Now that I followed the whole thing I have to say to Mr B that what you did was seriously screwy and plain wrong in both senses of the word.

          Ethically wrong for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone with a passing sense of right and wrong and for reasons unexplainable to those without such ethics.

          Also simply erroneous. Having spent many years working with Americans I can tell you that thanking people for their prayers is second nature to them. Its a reflex that means nothing. A bit like us saying “God bless you” after a sneeze doesn’t indicate religiosity, or saying “Christ you’re a tool” (while technically correct in your case🙂 ) doesn’t involve a belief in the deity.

          I get that your have a theory that all skeptics are religious nutters and that you’ll do anything to try to slot skeptics into that category, but you really ought to draw the line somewhere.

          That you openly did this reflects badly on you. That you haven’t been pulled up by your supporters here reflects badly on this site.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Thank you J Giddeon. I was a little surprised that others on this site actually tried to defend what john did in this case even after he first denied it then tried to minimize it like it does here ““twenty seconds from top to bottom”. Anyone who uses Facebook knows you can’t scroll through over 2 years worth of posts in 20 seconds.

          Apparently john thinks I should have insulted my friends and family when they said they would pray for my mom when she was hospitalized. I disagree. I also don’t insult someone when they say “Merry Christmas!” to me or “Bless you” when I sneeze.

          What I still don’t get is his obsessive need for me to be a christian.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john said “you still have not replied – Did you tell your friends that praying to a god was ludicrous before or after you thanked them for their prayers?”

          I have replied. I told you I don’t insult my friends for their beliefs. I politely thanked them. My opinion is that you have to be a pretty big asshole to insult people that offer their thoughts and prayers in a time of need regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

        • john byatt says:

          J giddeon , you cannot even read a simple newspaper report (the land) without getting it wrong, why would i care what you believe after reading comments here

        • J Giddeon says:

          “you cannot even read a simple newspaper report (the land)”

          I give up…what does that mean? the land?

        • J Giddeon says:

          OK I worked it out. The Land is the paper that reported the highest temp in QLD that you were rabbiting on about above.

          One small problem…I didn’t comment on that. Not a word, not a syllable not a passing reference. So when you say I “cannot even read a simple newspaper report (the land) without getting it wrong” what you mean is?; well who the hell knows what you mean…not me and certainly not you.

          I’d like to say apology accepted but we all know that people like you don’t apologise…they just hurry on to the next topic and hope like hell that no one noticed their moronic behaviour. Sorry, but I DID notice.

        • john byatt says:

          lol

          john byatt says:
          September 15, 2013 at 7:13 am
          another record for QLD

          Rockhampton has just had record heat for this early in the season, 36.1 degrees on Thursday. In 75 years of records the Capricornia town had only been this hot as early as September 22 in 1943.

          http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/qld-breaks-early-season-heat-record/2671327.aspx

          K largo says:
          September 15, 2013 at 2:51 pm
          If you are going to mine for inconsequential facts, then at least check the story and the data.

          On September 22 1943, 70 years ago, it was 37.1 a whole 1.0 C hotter than the reported 36.1 for this September. I wonder how hot it could have been 100 years ago?

        • john byatt says:

          still get you two mixed up, like sock puppets

        • J Giddeon says:

          As I said, no apology or even acknowledgement of error, just more abuse.

          “A man without honour is worse than dead”.

        • john byatt says:

          it is the second time I have done it,sorry

          guess that you did understand the land news story, could you explain to K largo why he lacks comprehension skills

  16. J Giddeon says:

    Uh-oh this can’t be good….

    From the Oz (and lots of other papers)
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

    “THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

    More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought……claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped……Professor Judith Curry [said] the leaked summary showed “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux”…..”the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007″….. “it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet”……the draft report recognised the global warming “pause”, with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997……..Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution……a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

    Maybe having someone sceptical of the IPCC process as science minister makes sense.

    • What is it with deniers not checking sources? Dennis Jensen has been posting that link on Twitter too and like you, he hasn’t bothered to actually check the IPCC 2007 report either.

      http://t.co/edQXO9MZ1T

      • J Giddeon says:

        The IPCC report I read did say that they predicted a rise of .2 deg/decade over the next few decades. I must have read a different report.
        Poor old Karoly now reduced to playing silly little semantic games.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I think the confusion here (or obfuscation) is the projected warming against the actual warming. Obviously if we’re just looking at measured warming then the trend isn’t going to change dramatically simply by including a few additional years of data. With “the pause” the overall trend drops slightly but only veryslightly.

          I think some people are trying to make too much out of a slight change while others are trying to make excuses for the failed projections in previous IPCC reports.

        • Here you go. The actual report.

          http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html

          “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature[9] (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values. {3.2} ”

          “Poor old Karoly now reduced to playing silly little semantic games.”

          If correcting blatant lies and gross misrepresentations is “playing silly little semantic games” in your eyes, well that says an aweful lot about you.

        • john byatt says:

          J giddeon you have already proven (the land) that you have poor comprehension

          Professor David Karoly is Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Melbourne and a review editor of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

          “The Australian gets it wrong on global warming and the IPCC, again.

          Today’s Australian newspaper has major errors in its front page article with headline “We got it wrong on warming, says the IPCC”. I look forward to The Australian publishing a correction or a new article with my headline above.

          The first sentence of the article states ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computers drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007’

          First, the latest assessment report has not been finalised, so no conclusions are final. Second, the observed global average warming of surface air temperature over the last 60 years of 0.12°C per decade is almost identical to the value reported in the IPCC report in 2007 of 0.13°C per decade (likely range 0.10 to 0.16°C per decade) for the period 1956 – 2005.

          The Australian got it wrong again on what the IPCC reported in 2007 and what is happening to global average temperatures.”

          ———–

        • Bill Jamison says:

          From the IPCC report that uki linked except in the section on projections:

          “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”

          Now obviously two decades haven’t passed yet but also obviously the rate of warming hasn’t been 0.2°C per decade over the last 30 years.

        • john byatt says:

          any point to that comment?

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes, if you try hard and are motivated to find ambiguity in the report then you might just find that the OZ wording was ‘iffy’.

          And having decided on that, you can then concentrate on that minor detail and ignore the substance of the article. As usual.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Do I really have to explain the point of everything jb?

          Earlier I said “I think the confusion here (or obfuscation) is the projected warming against the actual warming.”

          Actual warming is said to be 0.12°C per decade in the next IPCC report while projected warming in the last report was about 0.2°C per decade. That’s the source of the claim that actual warming is about half of projected warming. That claim is misleading IMO.

        • john byatt says:

          J Giddeon says:
          September 16, 2013 at 5:49 am
          Yes, if you try hard and are motivated to find ambiguity in the report then you might just find that the OZ wording was ‘iffy’.

          And having decided on that, you can then concentrate on that minor detail and ignore the substance of the article. As usual.

          what did you see as the substance?

        • J Giddeon says:

          For example:

          * the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought

          *Professor Judith Curry [said] the leaked summary showed “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux”

          *the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007

          *it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet

          *the draft report recognised the global warming “pause”, with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997

          *Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250

          *a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

        • john byatt says:

          it has not been released yet, ???

        • john byatt says:

          for instance AR4

          http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-6-3.html

          A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones, with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones.

        • Nick says:

          J Giddeon, News Ltd has pushed a lie, the lie that post 1950 warming was half what was predicted. That’s not ‘iffy’ that’s as plain as the nose on your face. Put it down to incompetence,or malice…whatever…the fact is, the whole article is built on an egregious error.

          The 0.2C/decade was the post-2007 projection. The rag tried to make out that it was post 1950…wrong,wrong,wrong!

          As well, the rest of the article is just well-poisoning speculation built on a leaked draft, as the paper tries to position itself as ‘ahead of the curve’ and ‘in the know’….it’s an embarrassing display from the info-wreckers, and quite what we have come to expect from this unresponsive, agenda-driven media organisation.

          News Ltd must be broken up in the interests of better information quality.

        • Bernard J. says:

          Yes, if you try hard and are motivated to find ambiguity in the report then you might just find that the OZ wording was ‘iffy’.

          There’s no doubt that the Australian was wrong:

          http://www.smc.org.au/2013/09/rapid-reaction-did-the-ipcc-get-it-wrong-experts-respond/

          Only an anti-science denialist would try to brush the fur backward.

  17. john byatt says:

    Bill Jamison says:
    September 16, 2013 at 3:57 am
    I think the confusion here (or obfuscation) is the projected warming against the actual warming. Obviously if we’re just looking at measured warming then the trend isn’t going to change dramatically simply by including a few additional years of data. With “the pause” the overall trend drops slightly but only veryslightly.

    I think some people are trying to make too much out of a slight change while others are trying to make excuses for the failed projections in previous IPCC reports.

    what failed projections ?

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-408445

    j giddeon and bill cannot comprehend a simple news item in a newspaper (the land) nor it seems can they comprehend a model/obs comparison

    • Bill Jamison says:

      The failed projection for rate of warming. duh

      Read and learn if you’re capable of either.

      http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/ar5-trend-comparison/

      • john byatt says:

        I think some people are trying to make too much out of a slight change while others are trying to make excuses for the failed projections in previous IPCC reports.

        the models are the projections duh

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-408445

        lucia is talking about the model mean

        “even in the absence of any simulated volcanic eruptions”. But this only means that owing to existence of some models with lower rates of warming and greater than average variabiilty, the observation does fall in the spread of “all models all runs”. This does not imply that the models, on average are getting the correct trend– and in this case, on average, the model-mean trend is statistically inconsistent with the observed trend.)”

        the model mean is not the projection, the graph is the 95% confidence range of warming projections,

        read model FAQ’s at RC from climatologist gavin schmidt and try to understand a bit of this

        • john byatt says:

          Gavin schmidt

          Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries. We discussed this more extensively here.

          The CMIP3 model simulations were an ‘ensemble of opportunity’ and vary substantially among themselves with the forcings imposed, the magnitude of the internal variability and of course, the sensitivity. Thus while they do span a large range of possible situations

          , the average of these simulations is not ‘truth’.

          The model simulations use observed forcings up until 2000 (or 2003 in a couple of cases) and use a business-as-usual scenario subsequently (A1B). The models are not tuned to temperature trends pre-2000.
          Differences between the temperature anomaly products is related to: different selections of input data, different methods for assessing urban heating effects, and (most important) different methodologies for estimating temperatures in data-poor regions like the Arctic. GISTEMP assumes that the Arctic is warming as fast as the stations around the Arctic, while HadCRUT4 and NCDC assume the Arctic is warming as fast as the global mean. The former assumption is more in line with the sea ice results and independent measures from buoys and the reanalysis products.
          Model-data comparisons are best when the metric being compared is calculated the same way in both the models and data. In the comparisons here, that isn’t quite true (mainly related to spatial coverage), and so this adds a little extra structural uncertainty to any conclusions one might draw.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s a shame that your reading comprehension isn’t as good as your cutting and pasting skills jb.

          Maybe you could raise your objection to the IPCC since this statement was in the last report:

          ““For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.””

          Note that they don’t say the projection includes the entire spread of the models but rather they say explicitly that “warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected”. Which is why I said that is the projection. And it’s failing.

        • john byatt says:

          bill “I think some people are trying to make too much out of a slight change while others are trying to make excuses for the failed projections in previous IPCC reports”

          but now you are referring to a future failed projection rate.?

          sheesh .

        • john byatt says:

          bill next time read the links you post and you will not get it so wrong

        • Nick says:

          Bill Jamison calls time on a projection that is barely 30% run….premature!

        • john byatt says:

          I would think that we could not call it correct or incorrect until 2037

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Actually Nick I was explaining the apples to oranges comparison. Sorry you missed it. Each side is cherry picking and trying to show their side is right. I was pointing out the issues.

        • Nick says:

          You claimed the projection was ‘failing’. I responded to that claim. It’s premature. You also claim they don’t pick the entire spread of the models…that’s wrong .What they actually do is derive their projection from the multi-model mean.

          As for ‘both sides are cherry-picking’…sorry,that’s rubbish. One ‘side’ gathers ALL the data, does ALL the analysis, makes ALL the efforts to model scenarios,reviews ALL the history of the field…the other ‘side’ cherry-picks, misinterprets, gets stuff wrong, has no idea about the history and philosophy of science, and overestimates its ability to interpret legitimate science.

          It’s unequal combat. Scientists have to explain and review, retract,rewrite and keep adding to their knowledge. Rejectionists on the other hand have no standards, never apologise,and never acknowledge error. I know this because I debunk rejectionists all the time. They turn up with a paper,or an abstract, or a press release,or just some scribbling from a nutter,and they don’t know what it means,but that doesn’t stop them from pretending. The most you get out of them is they withdraw for a while. They usually come back after a few days, because their cause must be pursued. It’s noble, even sacred,and damn the truth.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          And I didn’t say it had “failed” I said it was “failing”. It is. The earth certainly hasn’t been warming at a rate of .2C per decade over the last 6 years. So we’re at least 60% through one decade with no sign of warming at that rate. Even alarmists have to admit that little fact.

          Could that change? Absolutely. Is there any sign that it will change? Nope. Maybe we’re in the middle of another decades long pause such as that seen previously. No way to know except in hindsight.

  18. J Giddeon says:

    After all that, no Science minister at all. CSIRO to come under Industry so I guess science will fall there too. No minister for Climate Change – will anyone notice?

    • john byatt says:

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-16/abbott-unveils-new-ministry/4960186#comments

      littlemaths 3:33 PM on 16/09/2013
      First Government in 80 years not to have a science minister. Extraordinary.

      • john byatt says:

        love it

        a grain of salt 3:51 PM on 16/09/2013
        The non-appointment of a Science Minister, what else would anyone expect from a creationist?

        • J Giddeon says:

          Now Abbott’s a creationist? You’re a laugh a minute. A fact free zone who doesn’t know any better.

        • john byatt says:

          I did not say that but i love the guy/gal who called him out on it

          his science advisor is archbishop pell

        • J Giddeon says:

          Mr B,

          When you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the best idea is to stop digging.

        • john byatt says:

          what a strange comment

        • john byatt says:

          on his wiki

          , Abbott has said: “The priesthood gives someone the power to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. It doesn’t give someone the power to convert poor logic into good logic.”

          that is weird and somewhat creepy.

        • Nick says:

          JB,is it an oblique criticism of George Pell…because it bloody well should be!

      • Not only that, but there are more women in Afghanistan’s ministry than in Abbott’s. I thought he was content with stepping boldly forward into the 1950’s but it seems he wants to take us back further than that. I suspect he will cave to pressure soon and have a woman as the new minister for making sandwiches. He may also create a new portfolio for pseudoscience to be headed up by the most qualified person there, Jensen. It’ll be hilariously cringeworthy. I can see it now.

        Jensen: I seek leave to table this Heartland Institute Climate Report. It’s got some great stuff from Monckton in it.
        .

        • john byatt says:

          and following in the path of denier newman QLD premier, has closed the ministry of climate change and put it as a sub section of environment.(maybe, nothing stated)

          cannot debate hunt so he castrates him

        • J Giddeon says:

          “Not only that, but there are more women in Afghanistan’s ministry than in Abbott’s.”

          Mr uknowispeaksense ,

          You really need to check your sources before mouthing off. Afghanistan has 3 women in its ministry whereas we have 5.
          What you meant to say is that Afghanistan has more women in its cabinet than we do. But that’s because their entire ministry is in the cabinet whereas we have an inner and outer cabinet. If you can’t regurgitate ALP talking points without screwing up you ought to give it up.

        • john byatt says:

          comparing cabinets

          abbott women 1 out of 19

          afghanastan 3 out of 25

    • Nick says:

      ‘Will anyone notice?’….that’s the idea,hide it. In one sense, gutless. In another sense, astute, because between the incompetent Mirabella and the loose-cannon physics-rejecting physicist Jensen,the portfolio would send Tones into damage control too often.

      Climate change has been airbrushed from the present. Perfect for the god-bothering liars to concentrate on serving their resource industry paymasters.

      • J Giddeon says:

        Neither gutless nor astute. Just a reflection of the fact that the great scare is over. The majority no longer care, can no longer be misled into caring and governments the world over are moving on.

        • john byatt says:

          then WTF are you doing here if it is all over?

          go and celebrate

        • Nick says:

          Governments the world over are favoring the fossil-fuel bloc that favors them…truth runs a distant second to tailored messages for jumpy institutional investors…we don’t want to honestly account for fossil-fuel costs through time,and don’t want no stranded assets. Convenient then to frame information about the environment and climate change as a scare [scam / hoax/ exaggeration / plot / etc], and disappear the portfolio. It’s called kicking the can down the road, as you’d well know.

        • Dr No says:

          Thanks Kermit.

          I suppose we can now all look forward to a benign summer this year given that the crisis has been declared over.
          i.e.
          no serious bushfires
          no serious droughts
          no serious floods
          no serious heat waves
          no more rising sea level

          never, ever again.

          Mummy, tell those nasty scientists go away and never come back ….
          so we can all live happily for ever and ever.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “no serious bushfires
          no serious droughts
          no serious floods
          no serious heat waves
          no more rising sea level”

          Because none of those things ever happened before those nasty capitalist running-dogs started polluting the planet, right?

        • john byatt says:

          Says the bloke with two dicks

          http://tinyurl.com/ofa5ka4

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Well john I think you just hit a new low with your ridiculous insults and attacks.

        • john byatt says:

          sorry forgot you christian fundies were here,

          john byatt says:
          September 14, 2013 at 9:48 am
          in your youth you got to listen to Catholic and other religious leaders did you.

          first hand experience I take it?

          J Giddeon says:
          September 14, 2013 at 10:06 am
          “first hand experience I take it?”

          Actually it was BOTH hand experience…but then, I boast.🙂

          sorry if that offends your christian ethics.

          john byatt says:
          September 14, 2013 at 10:38 am
          another proud tosser

          john byatt says:
          September 14, 2013 at 8:43 pm
          “Actually it was BOTH hand experience”

          we knew you had two , no one could get that stupid just playing with one

          after we had the two days of faux outrage over his facebook we look like more faux outrage over penis euphemisms

        • Nick says:

          Today, Jensen is rumbling about the ‘schizophrenic’ disappearing of the science portfolio…and fulminating about how ARC hands out grants..and blithely rating Abbott’s decision as poor. I don’t want to censor him, but he is being clumsy about the matter.

          Now, you might see why Tony excluded him…not a team player,and like it or not Abbott gets to direct the team. He should be sharing these frank views with Abbott first.

          Now I can conditionally agree with Jensen about the portfolio being marginalised, but his other issues seem to be strongly ideologically driven. I know Jensen is complaining partly in self-interest, and I know he is completely the wrong guy for the portfolio, or any portfolio for that matter, because he is dismissive of serious science when it suits him: this arrogance, and poor judgement, makes him look like the wrong guy to deal with a department. He doesn’t seem to understand that Abbott will marginalise climate matters with a little less trumpet: maybe Tony is to subtle for Dennis!

        • Gregory T says:

          John, I think Bill is just pissie, because he can’t be a pivotman like J.G..

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Offended? Not hardly. Just a schoolyard insult from a little bully. Seems like you can never just state your opinion but rather you have to resort to insults and name calling like a little kid.

        • john byatt says:

          what’s with the double negative all the time? local colloquialism,

          he bragged that he had two dicks, how is it an insult having two dicks unless you say he is playing with them.

          he said he played with them “TWO HANDS”

          lol

        • J Giddeon says:

          Actually, I didn’t say I had two. I was jokingly suggesting my one was so big I needed two hands to walk the dog. It was a throw-away line that you took way too far.

        • john byatt says:

          Oh so were using it as a dog lead?

    • J Giddeon says:

      In the mind of the previous government, it was more important to seem to be concerned than to be actually effective. Part of that resulted in all sorts of interest groups getting their own minister. Or so it seemed. But in reality they just got a minister who seemed to be their’s.

      So we ended up with absurdities like Emerson who was Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. (and minister in charge of making Shirley Strachan turn in his grave) all at once.

      The broom that is cleaning up after the debacle of the last 6 years doesn’t play those games.

      Science will still be looked after but without the need of actually attaching the name to the end of some minister’s title.

  19. john byatt says:

    dennis jensen has not made a comment yet but one of his friends comments is a classic

    ‘look dennis you have someone who accepts the science here, quick unfriend him

    we do not want any debate’

    https://www.facebook.com/dennisjensenmp

    • john byatt says:

      a lot of the Climate sceptics party and justgrounds members have friended him since he put his hand up for the non science ministry.

      the names are known

      • Nick says:

        Well then,that sealed it for Tony… neutralise the crank-magnet, and hide science where it really belongs in the humble service of god’s industry! Amen!

  20. john byatt says:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-16/science-experts-question-new-cabinet/4961214

    But according to Professor Field, that left questions about academic science, and about various other scientific organisations.

    “CSIRO is one aspect of science by all means, and it would be good if science research, and even if higher education or at least the university sector, were linked as closely as possible with CSIRO,” he said.

    “One is still waiting to see if, when the full details of the portfolios are announced we find that science does fit in under the industry portfolio. But I think we don’t know that at this time.”

  21. Sou says:

    John Byatt, help me out here. Have you ever come across “zuma musa” in your travels?

    Not sure if it’s a Poe or a young earther or if there’s another label that can be applied.

    I’ve been the (un)fortunate recipient of a couple of odd comments about plate tectonics🙂

    (I don’t usually attract this type of crank. It makes a diversion from the norm.)

  22. Gregory T says:

    I’ve just heard, that Abbott has found a Tea Lady, that can read tea leaves and predict the weather. So problem solved

    • Nick says:

      I don’t think it is so much damage control as damage creation. The full monkey squad is throwing poo from the same heap!

      And the monkeys have privilege, since News Ltd now largely delegate their climate science reporting to the GWPF and the IPA. Rival media groups really need to get stuck into Murdoch over this, get VERY LOUD and VERY PUBLIC about this debauching of journalistic practice and ethics.

  23. john byatt says:

    jensen’s facebook is now the homepage for Australia’s flying monkeys

    https://www.facebook.com/dennisjensenmp

    on ABC1 at 11am

  24. Bernard J. says:

    So the almost-Minister for Science’s first “Other” favourite linkie on his official Facebook page is “Telling Al Gore he’s full of crap”, followed by “Climate-gate”?!

    What an embarrassment for Australian political sophistication.

    Also, if he likes Carl Sagan Jensen should also be aware that Sagan fully accepted the science, and warned of the dangers of a warming planet back in 1990:

    http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/05/carl-sagan-on-global-warming/

  25. Bernard J. says:

    Also on Sagan:

    Sagan comes in at 14:00 minutes.

  26. […] some initial speculation (and concern), Denis Jensen did not land the role of science minister. Placing a climate sceptic in […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: