Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Big Australian media reject climate science

Australia has the most concentrated press ownership in the world. What does that mean for significant issues such as climate change? In 2011 and 2012 we at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism…

A new study finds a third of Australian newspaper articles reject climate science. Flickr/pasukaru76

Australia has the most concentrated press ownership in the world. What does that mean for significant issues such as climate change?

In 2011 and 2012 we at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at University of Technology, Sydney collected data on climate science coverage in ten Australian newspapers. We published the results yesterday in a report: Sceptical Climate: Part 2.

We found that Australia’s concentrated newspaper ownership has a significant effect on how climate science is covered. One third of articles in Australia’s major newspapers do not accept the consensus position of climate science: that human beings are contributing to climate change.

That’s a very high level of scepticism when you consider that these stories are rejecting findings that over 97% of the world’s climate scientists support. Recently the International Panel on Climate Change found there was 95% certainty that people were contributing to climate change.

How did we decide what was sceptical?

The core of the study was a content analysis of all articles in ten major Australian newspapers between February and April in 2011 and 2012. We found 602 articles referred to climate science in total, with a 20% drop from 2011 to 2012.

But how did we decide what was sceptical, and what was not?

We measured scepticism as the articles that rejected the scientific consensus position of climate science: that humans are contributing to climate change. To start with we asked: does the article agree or disagree with the consensus position?

We later realised this was too simplistic, and created four categories for articles:

  • Accepted: these articles communicated acceptance of the consensus position either explicitly or implicitly.

  • Rejected: these articles outright rejected the consensus scientific position on anthropogenic global warming, for example, by calling it a hoax.

  • Suggested doubt: these articles communicated doubt by suggesting, for example, that there was insufficient evidence for, or substantial debate in the scientific community about the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

  • Unable to discern: we weren’t able to allocate the article to one of the other categories (very small number of articles).

The level of scepticism was then measured as a proportion of the articles that “rejected” or “suggested doubt” about the consensus position.

What were the major findings?

As with most content analysis, we had to explore deeper to see where the real problem lies. We looked at circulation, ownership, and genre of articles.

Australia’s two biggest newspapers by circulation, News Corp’s Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun, were more than 60% sceptical about anthropogenic climate change.

Australia’s largest circulation newspaper, the Herald Sun, is its most sceptical. 67% of the paper’s coverage of climate science did not accept the scientific consensus.

When we look further at ownership, we can start to map out the landscape of scepticism in Australia.

Fairfax Media, owners of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald accepts the consensus position and published very few articles that communicated doubt about anthropogenic climate change. While the West Australian had a very low amount of coverage, it was also not sceptical.

Five News Corporation publications, The Australian (48% of coverage was sceptical) , Daily Telegraph (63%), Herald Sun (67%), Adelaide Advertiser (28%) and the NT News (42%) accounted for most of the scepticism. The other two News Corp papers The Mercury and The Courier Mail were not sceptical.

While the News Corp tabloids tend to outright reject the consensus, the national newspaper The Australian is more likely to suggest that climate science is a matter of debate.

We can also break down the figures by genre of articles. News Corp produced a much higher proportion (51%) of comment articles on climate science than Fairfax (27%). In the Herald Sun 97% of comment articles were sceptical.

This is largely due to Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, who wrote over half of all the words on climate science in the paper. Bolt plays a significant and strategic role in the production of climate scepticism in Australia and is syndicated in metropolitan and regional publications around Australia. He is heard almost daily on Sydney’s right wing radio station 2GB and presents The Bolt Report on Channel 10.

So what does this mean?

As Tom Morton the Director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, which published the study, said yesterday:

If you believe that the main obligation of journalists is to the public right to know, the results of this study are truly alarming. Journalism is about reporting contemporary events as accurately as possible. There could be no better example of the importance of this than the reporting of climate science.

Readers of sceptical papers receive almost no information that would enable them to understand the complexities or likely impacts of climate change domestically or internationally. The research findings of climate scientists are largely rendered invisible for News Corp audiences. Its tabloid publications produce no critique of the sceptic position.

News Corp’s coverage seems to be more about production of ignorance than informing people so they can participate in debates about solutions. If people are confused or ignorant about potential threats, they cannot be expected to support action to confront them.

It is not surprising therefore that levels of acceptance of anthropogenic climate change have dropped in Australia, where we have the highest emissions per person in the world. The public is paying a heavy price for having News Corp as the dominant player in the most concentrated press in the developed world.

Sceptical Climate: Part 2 is the second part in a research project from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. You can read about the first part on newspapers and climate policy here.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

203 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

    1. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Re: Stop calling them sceptics and start calling them what they are. Deniers and liars.

      Well, then to your surprise you may discover someone might be applying this to your camp having a full right to do so.

      Again, this is not a discussion about whether this man made global thing is right or wrong, this is a discussion why media describe the whole thing differently.

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      '....Well, then to your surprise you may discover someone might be applying this to your camp having a full right to do so...."

      "My camp"'? That would be the one espoused by scientists after a rational analysis of the evidence.

      And who would be those 'someones' who might call these scientists deniers and liars, and what are their qualifications for doing so?

      report
    3. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      LOL. Mr Gilmour claims to be a scientist.

      See below

      Me: "Re: Scientist. Person who gets advanced degree after many years of study of a scientific discipline, does scientific research, publishes in peer-reviewed journals, possibly teaches at university.
      Does that ring a bell? You do not just get to call yourself a scientist"

      Mr Gilmour : "No, it does not ring the bell. This is because I do all the above you mentioned and do successfully for many years."

      ------

      Mr Gilmour above using his best scientific terminology : " this man made global thing ..."

      I suspect that Mr Gilmour is not who he pretends to be.

      report
    4. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      I think the skew in News Corp's report recently was more to do with wanting to sway the 2013 election result than anything to do with climate change.

      Way back when (2007), Rupert was clearly positive on green initiatives;

      http://voices.yahoo.com/rupert-murdoch-taking-news-corp-green-367497.html?cat=15

      His coverage of Rudd in the 2007 election was quite favourable, or at least nowhere near as biased as his coverage in 2013. He quickly lived to regret not opposing Rudd's march to the lodge and had it in for the labor government ever since. The carbon tax was obviously a focus point for the electorate so what better way to stir up negative sentiment than to question the science behind climate change.

      Murdoch doesn't make steel, or smelt aluminium so a carbon tax wouldn't concern him much at all. Labor threatening to change media ownership laws is a different matter.

      report
    5. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Re: LOL. Mr Gilmour claims to be a scientist...

      It is sad that you deviate from the topic of the original discussion and is going personal. This trick always proves that you have no arguments to support your view. This is a well known way to go and therefore I do not care.

      Speaking on the subject and how the whole climate thing is linked to politics.
      This is just an example
      http://in-other-news.com/2011/Short-Summary-of-Solyndra-scandal

      Have a read and think about the reasons why one party gives a green light to waste billions, then the second party attacks the first one. Things like that are all climate related where big $$$ are involved. The same behaviour we see in our newspapers in relation to this issue.

      report
    6. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Jack, he did a little greenwashing of his own internal operations (by the way, as someone who works in the field, I can tell you almost any 'green' initiative, such as improving energy efficiency, actually saves considerable money and often surprisingly quickly and easily, so there are plenty of alternative motives around for this kind of 'going green' - I'm not saying we shouldn't all do it - we damned well should - jus tthat it doesn't necessarily demonstrate very much in and of itself) - this is trivial in comparison with the harm he has caused by actively promoting disinformation.

      report
  1. Chris Harper

    Engineer

    I find the results of this survey astonishing, in as much that, as a sceptic myself, I know no one, myself included, who don't accept that humans have contributed to climate change.

    The issues are much more, by what amount do humans contribute, the validity of the forecast models used by the IPCC, the integrity of the research and presentation by the IPCC and those associated with it, and the value and validity of the solutions put forward.

    report
    1. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Chris Harper

      '..... I know no one, myself included, who don't accept that humans have contributed to climate change....."

      You need to read more Chris - there are thousands who think that.

      report
    2. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Chris Harper

      I think all your allegations have been comprehensively answered:

      the bulk of climate change is induced by human activity

      the forecast models are not perfect (nothing is but they are the best we have) but they have been quite valid. See-http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

      the IPCC summarises and presents the state of peer-reviewed science.

      If you have evidence that could impugn IPCC integrity please supply the relevant links so we can determine the validity of the criticism.

      If you are a true sceptic what about you put forward some solutions to us.

      Anything less is just hand waving!

      report
    3. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Chris Harper

      So, you're really only saying that your making a different series of misrepresentations. Not much better than defending a charge of stealing lollies by pointing out that you were actualy at the time busy mugging a pensioner...

      report
    4. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      I should have added that, given that the IPCC is just a collection of respected experts in various relevant disciplines collating, comparing and summarising all the data published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (with at least one small error about Himalyan glaciers in all those pages of reporting) then, by challenging the integrity of their research and presentation, you are pretty much challenging the integrity of the whole body of scientific research and reporting.

      So your distinctions are little more than a sleight of hand designed to distract the viewer from where the pea is hidden.

      report
    5. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Chris Harper

      Real Resources True Information Actual Facts from the Source - IPCC does NOT offer Solutions! http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf
      Read the IPCC AR5 WGI Report in Full or part - Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UnMy5Plmh8F
      Realclimate's Climate Scientists summarize the key findings and shows the most interesting graphs for the interested Public: "It is now considered even more certain (> 95%) that human influence…

      Read more
    6. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike,

      Acknowledging that climate change is happening, and that humans have a contributory role is in no way incompatible with regarding the CAGW hysteria as a scam.

      No shape shifting necessary.

      Sorry.

      report
    7. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      re: "the IPCC summarises and presents the state of peer-reviewed science" .. yes, in this case only those Papers published by 2010. (or maybe 2011, check it) Point being the latest higher quality papers and studies and data assembled and published from 2011 to now are NOT included in the latest 2013 IPCC Reports, nor will they influence next years other Working Groups reports.
      Therefore the 2012 major ice loss in the arctic and greenland may not be included in the 2013/14 IPCC reports and analysis and summary conclusions. You'll never hear that from an anti-climate science activist now or into the future. Important qualifications and the details are not their forte, nor in their scope of interest. :)

      report
    8. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry,

      You said: "the forecast models are not perfect (nothing is but they are the best we have) but they have been quite valid"

      I am sorry, but that simply is not true. It has reached to point that we can now have less that 2% confidence in the validity of the models. Or to reverse that, we are in excess of 98% confident that they don't reflect the world as it is actually observed.

      I refer you to a recent paper by Professor Hans von Storch, Lead Author on both the third and fifth IPCC assessment…

      Read more
  2. John Newton

    Author Journalist

    Have any climate scientists attempted to sit down with Bolt and discuss his attitude? No. On second thoughts it'd be tantamount to trying to talk to Akerman or Jones.

    Although I can't help feeling that the right person could get through bolted on Bolt's defenses.

    I mean, he drags out the same old lines - no warming since 1998, Antarctic ice coverage increasing et cetera et cetera – surely an articulate and informed climate scientist sitting across the table from him could persuade him.

    report
    1. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to John Newton

      John,

      I look forward to your providing a list of all those things Bolt has said for which there is no justification.

      report
    2. John Crest

      logged in via email @live.com.au

      In reply to John Newton

      Perhaps. But Bolt has made climate denial his cause celebre. He's put himself in a position where it's almost impossible to see how he could publicly change his mind.

      report
    3. John Perry

      Teacher

      In reply to John Newton

      Step 1: Find an Australian billionaire ready to start up a media outlet that takes climate science seriously.

      Step 2: Offer Andrew Bolt a position at this new media outlet for twice the salary he currently earns.

      Step 3: AB is told he has to ditch the climate denialism in his articles.

      Watch how quickly money will talk then.

      report
    4. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to John Newton

      A scientist sitting down with Bolt would be a waste of time and also a mistake. It would merely be an opportunity for Bolt to spew forth an avalanche of denialist talking points and claim that anything the scientist didn't have a response to was evidence of 'gross scientific ignorance'. The next day he'd be in all the Murdoch tabloids, his blog, and on 2GB declaring "Warmist faith is no match for my facts!". It's like creationists: They don't want to "debate" scientists because they think they'll convince them. They just want to create a perception that they're on a level footing with the experts.

      report
    5. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      No need to merely guess, if you remember that documentary where Sir Paul Nurse tried to reason with James Delingpole.

      Delingpole simply ignored him, sidestepped, refuse dto answer, tried to change the subject and generally behaved like a sily little school boy trying to bluff a teacher.

      Not only was Delingpole idiotic and without even a hint of a substantive argument (no surprise there) but mister-abuse-them-in-books-and-articles-and-blogs was too gutless to even stand his ground when face to face with the rather urbane and mild-mannered Nurse.

      report
    6. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      ".. a misunderstanding of the Science ..." aka Conflating what the MEDIA & Amateurs claim & say (eg News Corp, Fox News, Jo Nova, Bob Carter & Andrew Bolt) versus what the Scientific papers, Scientists public statements, and what the IPCC actually wrote and when:
      No Slowdown in Global Warming http://youtu.be/047vmL6Q_4g
      Global warming has stopped? Again?? http://youtu.be/Qbn1rCZz1ow
      The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars http://youtu.be/NUFGh89bvp0
      UK Met Office Emails Conspiracy Theory
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/second-cru-inquiry-reports/
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/

      report
    7. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to John Crest

      John,

      What is it Bolt is denying? The term 'climate denial' is a non specific smear term, and is meaningless without a statement of what specifically is being denied.

      Can you provide that, or do we assume that you don't know what it is that Andrew Bolt has said?

      report
    8. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to John Perry

      John,

      I would point out that Rupert Murdoch is accepting of the claims of the IPCC, and that News Corp has the aim of becoming carbon dioxide neutral.

      I would suggest that that is an example of an organisation which "takes climate science seriously".

      report
    9. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to John Newton

      John Newton,

      Sorry, I fail to see any in your post. The two you cite are very real.

      Atmospheric warming has paused, the inflection point on the smoothed graph is 1998, and Antarctic ice cover is at a high. It does not help your case that you ignore real world observations.

      report
    10. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to John Newton

      Sigh

      Tu quoque hey?

      I disagree with your claims, therefore I don't read the science? Seriously? When even the IPCC is now, through gritted teeth, acknowledging the pause?

      As to Antarctica, this is not science, just observational fact. As I said, when you can show what Bolt has said that is wrong I would appreciate hearing about it.

      I know these inconvenient truths are contrary to the modeling forecasts, but in science observation trumps hypothesis.

      report
    11. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Chris Harper

      Several lies there Chris,
      "Sure, warmists exaggerated the temperature rise so far, The Age finally admits. But we still have to believe they'll be right about the apocalypse to come."....(The rate of global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas levels could be slower than previously thought, but will still result in the same eventual higher temperatures as earlier forecast, new research has said)"... "Note also the story suggests there has been a "rate of global warming" over the past decade…

      Read more
  3. Andrew Gilmour

    logged in via Facebook

    This is a very good article.

    I noticed that myself. When I read The Age, every second page says that tomorrow we would collapse due to global warming. When I read Herald Sun the messages are stating otherwise.

    There is a clear distinction between newspapers in what they say, which again proves to me that the whole thing is more about $$$ and some other goals rather than anything else.

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      Andrew! if I've told you once, I've told you a million times - don't exaggerate!

      (Sorry for the rather cheap joke)

      On your second point, the fact that newspapers tend to direct their material towards a target audience and thereby hope to make more money is certainly true, but that is a separate question from the requirement for basic accuracy.

      Equally, there's no reason why a publication shouldn't produce material for a very particular world view (check out the magazine stands in any newsagency…

      Read more
    2. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      RE: " every second page says that TOMORROW we would collapse" - No they do NOT say that. Not even once. EVER.

      report
    3. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      Andrew

      Who is getting all the $$$$?
      Who is behind the world-wide conspiracy?
      What are their goals?

      report
  4. Robin Bell

    Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle

    I believe in climate change and that human activities have accelerated change over time.
    And I am finding it easier and easier to believe that otherwise intelligent people expect that everyone will agree on any subject all the time or even some of the time.
    What I really have trouble with is those who suggest that people who disagree with main stream of belief for whatever reason should be abused, categories as loonies, marginalised or made the subject of humous or humourless vilification.
    Two thirds of media articles didn't fall into the "anti climate change" definition. What do you want, total control over what people think and say?

    report
    1. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Robin Bell

      No. Just a ratio of "pro" to "anti" climate science reporting that is reflective of the opinion of experts. Would you be happy if every third article in the Australian media on vaccination made allegations of links between vaccination and autism? What do you think it says about a newspaper when nearly 70% of its content on a scientific issue falls into the "it's a giant socialist plot" basket?

      report
    2. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Robin Bell

      Re: What I really have trouble with is those who suggest that people who disagree with main stream of belief for whatever reason should be abused, categories as loonies, marginalised

      So true. Several days ago I have seen in the paper a little letter from someone working for some sort environmental group. People in the group were asked to sign a petition for the media to ban articles or letters from climate sceptics. This is nowhere near any democratic norms and sharing opinions.

      report
    3. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      I don't have an issue with newspaper editors declining to publish clear errors of fact. Perhaps an alternative could be to enforce a strict ratio of 97% of letters accepting the science while 3% of the letters on climate science will be granted to the denialist position?

      report
    4. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      '....What I really have trouble with is those who suggest that people who disagree with main stream of belief for whatever reason should be abused, categories as loonies, marginalised..."

      Andrew, you need to get this straight. It is called climate "science" for a reason. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of evidence. "Belief" is what you have when you don't have any evidence for your position - like religion and climate denial.

      report
    5. Robin Bell

      Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Well actually that does happen Adam. The Supreme Court of NSW recently ruled that the HCCC had no power to stop a group opposed to vaccination having a web site titled "Australian Vaccination Network" and posting articles linking vaccination to various deseases including autism (all flawed or misinterpreted of course).
      I guess the idea is to earn the trust of the community in general as opposed to demanding it of everyone without exception.
      The majority of the community believe in climate change.

      report
    6. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      Do get your 'facts' straight, Andrew - the leter you mention will have been referenced to the Los Angeles Times which has adopted an editorial policy of refusing to publish any letter the content of which is manifestly false. This is not a 'ban on articles' or a blocking of reasoned debate, merely an attempt to sift out the manifest, proven nonsense, so that there is actually space and quiet and time for the genuine discussion/debate that is needed.

      The requirement for open, democratic debate does not include the right to lie and misrepresent.

      report
    7. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Robin Bell

      No Robin, nobody is requiring everyone to agree on any subject all the time or even some of the time - intelligent people are desiring the debate to be conducted on the basis of evidence rather than mere assertion.

      It's like the error of thinking that 'anti-discrimination' means you can never discriminate at all (i.e. between a better or weaker applicant for a job) whereas it really means you can't discriminate on irrelevant factors (applicant A is taller) or false/unverified data (applicant A…

      Read more
    8. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Robin Bell

      [Well actually that does happen Adam. The Supreme Court of NSW recently ruled that the HCCC had no power to stop a group opposed to vaccination having a web site titled "Australian Vaccination Network" and posting articles linking vaccination to various deseases including autism (all flawed or misinterpreted of course).]

      I'm not sure I follow? Of course people should be able to be wrong on the internet (the HCCC vs AVN is a bit more complicated). But we're talking about what newspapers editors can and can't, or should and shouldn't, do. If thousands of scientific papers published by thousands of scientific experts arrive at or support conclusion X, should a newspaper spend 70% of its coverage on that issue proclaiming -X, and what conclusions can we draw about a newspaper that pursues such a direction?

      report
    9. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Re: Andrew, you need to get this straight. It is called climate "science" for a reason. It is not a matter of belief

      This is not science and it is not settled. It is just one group of people decided to call them as scientists, whereas they also decided to call the opponents as deniers to try to improve their own position. We can debate about it for a long period of time.

      I am not going to discuss the correctness of this "science" here as the article is about how our media desribe the whole thing. They describe it differently depending on political links. This clearly indicates to me that such "science" is questionable.

      report
    10. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Re: 3% of the letters on climate science will be granted to the denialist position?

      This is a clear indication why the real debate is required on the whole thing.

      report
    11. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      "It is just one group of people decided to call them as scientists"

      You do realise how ridiculous that statement is?

      Scientist. Person who gets advanced degree after many years of study of a scientific discipline, does scientific research, publishes in peer-reviewed journals, possibly teaches at university.

      Does that ring a bell?

      You do not just get to call yourself a scientist

      The latest IPCC report
      209 - the number of scientists who as lead authors who worked on the full report.
      600+ - the number of scientists who contributed to the full report.
      9,200 - the number of scientific publications cited in the full report.
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/sep/27/ipcc-report-climate-change-numbers

      There is not a single significant scientific academy in the world that does not accept the science of AGW.
      http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

      report
    12. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      "....This is not science and it is not settled...."

      Half right. It is science - but no science is ever settled. But then, there isn't a scientist in the world who claims that it is. That is only a meme that deniers like yourself use.

      report
    13. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      Andrew,

      There are two camps within the denialist community with regard to consensus:

      1) The "No Consensus" faction, who claim that the scientific community is actually divided over whether AGW is real and a significant risk

      2) The "Conspiracy" faction, who will concede the overwhelming majority of experts accept the reality of AGW and its risks but will insist that it's only because of a conspiracy to attract more funding or that climate research only attracts 'green propagandists'.

      To which faction do you belong?

      report
    14. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Re: Scientist. Person who gets advanced degree after many years of study of a scientific discipline, does scientific research, publishes in peer-reviewed journals, possibly teaches at university.
      Does that ring a bell?
      You do not just get to call yourself a scientist

      No, it does not ring the bell. This is because I do all the above you mentioned and do successfully for many years.

      Again, going back to the original article, while you are trying to deviate...Why newspapers are expressing totally different opinions on the whole thing? I trust some good analysis is given in the article. It confirms that the whole thing is highly politisized, i.e. depending on the paper the facts are described differently. When it comes to politics, science usually goes away.

      report
    15. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Robin Bell

      Robin, Adam was refering to articles in the Australian media (particularly those bits that at least purport to be purveying reasonably impartial and accurate reporting of facts) NOT the right of any organisation (within some legal limits) to establish websites, publish their own material, etc.

      Surely that's a pretty simple distinction?

      report
    16. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Re:no science is ever settled. But then, there isn't a scientist in the world who claims that it is.

      To no surprise, I do not see discussions on maths or physics in The Age or Herald Sun. Does this ring the bell? :)

      For example, physics generates fundamental knowledge needed for the future technological advances that will continue to drive the economic engines of the world. Therefore, I'd love to see discussions about nuclear technology but discussions where physicists and engineers would participate…

      Read more
    17. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      I see the train has now left the station and Andrew has decided that he knows better than all the world's universities and science academies.

      Please consider yourself insulted, abused and dismissed.

      report
    18. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      "....To no surprise, I do not see discussions on maths or physics in The Age or Herald Sun. Does this ring the bell? :)..."

      Nope - but then, I don't read either The Age or the Herald Sun. And I read discussions on physics all the time. There is a good one on Dark Matter on The Conversation today. Have a read.

      And if you really want to read articles on maths and physics, give the newspapers a miss. They will mislead you almost every time. Read real science papers written by real scientists published in real science journals.

      There are some good ones on climate science that I can recommend as well - far better than the denialist crap that you would be exposed to in newspapers like the Herald Sun.

      report
    19. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix MacNeil wrote: "Please consider yourself insulted, abused and dismissed''

      I do not care at all. During lots of years of my professional career I saw a lot and stopped paying attention to such things about 15 yeas ago.

      If you would like to convince me that man made climate change is real, you are welcome to visit another topic which discusses exactly that. This topic is about how media guys describe the whole thing.

      report
    20. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Re: There are two camps within the denialist community with regard to consensus...To which faction do you belong?

      This very basic and simple approach divided people to only two categories to deal with them differently. Unfortunately, this approach misses such people who do not fit into any of these or fit in both at the same time.

      This again emphasises ignorance of the actual processes and the reality.

      report
    21. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Re: And if you really want to read articles on maths and physics, give the newspapers a miss. They will mislead you almost every time

      Why should I trust then the papers on special science matters related to climate if they give me misleading information anyway? :)

      This is exactly my point. However, I would still love to see scientific discussions in papers on a variety of subjects instead of reading horrible stories about the end of the world tomorrow.

      report
    22. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      '....Why should I trust then the papers on special science matters related to climate if they give me misleading information anyway? :)..."

      You shouldn't. As I said, if you want information on science, read a science paper. If you do so, the real position on climate change will become pretty obvious. And if you don't have time to summarise all the information yourseld, there is a very good UN organisation which has already done all the hard work.

      report
    23. Robin Bell

      Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Thanks Felix, WUWT was funny, but pretty mild compared to some of the bullying I've seen on the Con recently.
      Correct me if I'm wrong here. Newpapers and the media are not science journals. They report facts and opinions and a whole lot of things, including advertising, fiction, sport, star signs, fashion (OMG) and art etc. So the news is not just facts. Its also about what people think and do and imagine.
      To suggest that news papers and other media should only provide facts also raises the…

      Read more
    24. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      re: "The latest IPCC report" please note those numbers are ONLY for direct involvement in preparation of the AR5 WGI Report. It is NOT the total numbers of climate scientists and related fields directly engaged in studying Climate Change related issues worldwide, that goes to inform each other and feeds into those 9,200 cited papers in the last 2013 WGI report alone. Last I looked it was 27,000 +. But don't quote me or believe me otherwise one particular chap on TC will be all upset all over again. :)

      report
    25. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Robin Bell

      Any chance of you providing some evidence of 'bullying on the Con recently' (and that should include the whole string, please).

      I can't begin to unravel any meaning from your comments about science, religion and government, but I never suggested that newspapers should 'only provide facts', merely that they should fairly and accurately report on things like scientific evidence and opinion and that they should make the distinction between relatively 'objective' factual reporting and opinions clear.

      It's fine to report opinions, but not fine to suggest something like 'a majority of people believe X' when all the evidence available contradicts this claim. That's not reasonable opninion, it's just deceit.

      This has nothing to do with freedom and no-one is trying to remove anyone's freedom! though I would accept that I accept limitations on some freedoms, such as the freedom to lie, libel, slander, etc.

      report
    26. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      [This very basic and simple approach divided people to only two categories to deal with them differently. Unfortunately, this approach misses such people who do not fit into any of these or fit in both at the same time.]

      You're right - there is another category:

      3) The "scientists don't know what they're doing" faction, who believe that the thousands of experts studying the climate system are grossly incompetent and haven't considered the 'back of the envelope' hypotheses of the denialists like "It's the sun what's doing it" or "Warming drives increases in CO2, not the other way around".

      Do you belong to faction 1,2 or 3? Or do you adopt some of the arguments from each?

      report
    27. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Adam,

      If you don't like what a newspaper is saying you have the power to exercise the ultimate sanction of a free individual. Don't buy it.

      If enough people fail to buy it, it will soon change its position. Unless it is run by some body other than the owners of course.

      report
    28. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Mike,

      You said:"That is only a meme that deniers like yourself use."

      You could not be more wrong.

      The term "the science is settled" is used tongue in cheek by sceptics because it has been used so often for so long, by 'warmists' in order to close down discussion. It is used by sceptics as a term of derision for the position which has been pushed on them, time and time again.

      It is good to see someone on the other side od the discussion deride the term for the nonsense it is. Thank you.

      report
    29. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      There is another faction, and that is "Consensus is a legitimate tool of politics, but consensus has no role in science"

      That the IPCC actively seeks to create a consensus is all the evidence needed to demonstrate it is a political organisation.

      In science, if you cannot argue from the data you have no argument to put. Those who argue from the 'consensus' are adopting a political stance, and politics has no role in determining scientific truth. Unless your name is Trofim Lysenko of course.

      When seeking to persuade on a scientific issue it is not that a consensus is either affirmed or denied, it is instead that, real or not, it is irrelevant.

      If someone is arguing from the consensus it tells me they are unable to argue from the data, and that therefore they have no valid argument at all.

      report
    30. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      The problem comes at the intersection of scientific research and implementation. As you say, the science is always under discussion and subject to modification and refinement. However if we waited until the discussion was completed we would never get things done.
      At some point, the best description of the process at the time has to be the basis for action. This is done every day of the week in a variety or organisations.
      It is particularly crucial in processes like climate change when the lead…

      Read more
    31. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Chris Harper

      "....The term "the science is settled" is used tongue in cheek by sceptics because it has been used so often for so long, by 'warmists' in order to close down discussion...."

      You could not be more wrong.

      It is used a derisory term by deniers to suggest that models are not perfect, and therefore the whole science of climate change is wrong.

      Sceptics never use the term. As I said, no scientist would ever claim the science is settled, and scientists are the only true sceptics in this debate.

      report
    32. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Chris Harper

      [If you don't like what a newspaper is saying you have the power to exercise the ultimate sanction of a free individual. Don't buy it.]

      I don't. But the fact remains that thousands of people around this country are being misled about the reality of climate science. This doesn't bother you? If The Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph gave more space to anti-vaccination crusaders than to medical experts when covering immunisation you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, guess I'll just not buy their paper. That'll learn'em"?

      report
    33. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Chris Harper

      [There is another faction, and that is "Consensus is a legitimate tool of politics, but consensus has no role in science"

      That the IPCC actively seeks to create a consensus is all the evidence needed to demonstrate it is a political organisation.]

      A consensus is not sought by the IPCC, or the scientific community for that matter. It is arrived at by many scientists working independently. The current scientific understanding is not 'put to a vote' every so often. A consensus is what we observe…

      Read more
    34. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Adam,

      You said: "I don't. But the fact remains that thousands of people around this country are being misled about the reality of climate science. This doesn't bother you?"

      Absolutely it does. The ABC, financed as it is by funds I am forced to contribute, needs to be bought under control and induced to provide a more balanced view.

      Private organisations on the other hand, are fully entitled to publish as they see fit, and I would always advocate that situation be maintained. I know no one who is either intellectually or morally superior to the point that they are fit to tell any private individual or organisation what they may or may not say or think.

      The only sanction open to me is that I refrain from supporting them. Quite right too.

      That, of course, is not an option open to me with respect of any tax payer supported organisation, such as the ABC or The Conversation.

      report
    35. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      You said: "A consensus is not sought by the IPCC"

      I'm sorry, but this is not the case. The IPCC is quite open about their approach on this. They proclaim that they seek to create a consensus and make that consensus the basis of their reports.

      This, in itself, demonstrated the IPCC is a political organisation. Consensus has no role in a scientific report. It could not be more irrelevant.

      You said: "Scientists do in fact argue from the evidence. They don't just propose a hypothesis and insist…

      Read more
    36. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Mike,

      Sigh.

      Thank you for telling me my own motivations. You know them better than I do myself.

      Ok, I have been told, in all seriousness, more times than I can count, that “the science is settled” by people who were seeking to use the argument to deride my position and close down discussion. I have heard Tanya Pliberseck use it in that manner, I have heard Al Gore use it. I have seen it used much more than once here on The Conversation, and it was used constantly at Larvatus Prodeo back when I visited that site. You are one of the few people I have encountered, outside the ranks of sceptics I know, to adopt the perfectly reasonable position that the claim is nonsense. I thank you for that, and I am sincere in those thanks.

      However, I, and others, use the term tongue in cheek because we have encountered it so often. I am not asking your opinion on the matter, I am relating my own experiences, and describing my own motivations.

      report
    37. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Chris Harper

      "..... I have heard Tanya Pliberseck use it in that manner, I have heard Al Gore use it. I have seen it used much more than once here on The Conversation, and it was used constantly at Larvatus Prodeo back when I visited that site. You are one of the few people I have encountered, outside the ranks of sceptics I know, to adopt the perfectly reasonable position that the claim is nonsense. I thank you for that, and I am sincere in those thanks...."

      My pleasure Chris - but here's the thing. I am…

      Read more
    38. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Chris Harper

      [The ABC, financed as it is by funds I am forced to contribute, needs to be bought under control and induced to provide a more balanced view.]

      So more "vaccines cause autism", more "evolution is false" and more "9/11 was an inside job" on the ABC? What you're asking for isn't balance, it's false balance.

      [Private organisations on the other hand, are fully entitled to publish as they see fit...]

      I've never claimed otherwise. There is a difference between saying what editors CAN do and what they SHOULD do. I think you're ignoring the distinction.

      report
    39. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      You said: "start listening to, and reading, scientists."

      I'm sorry Mike, but I do. I have read the climategate emails, and I am appalled that these people are taken seriously.

      I watch what happens, and I see the arguments collapsing almost daily.

      I quote a scientist, Professor Bob Carter, a specialist in palaeoclimatology: "Climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or…

      Read more
    40. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Chris Harper

      The IPCC produces a summary of the climate science, which of course will involve the hundreds of experts involved arriving at a consensus with regards to what the science is telling us. What would you have them do instead - just print out every scientific paper and put them all in one big binder?

      [With the sole exception of Climate Science.]

      Oh please.

      Putting your gripes about a scientific consensus aside, you still need to address why such an overwhelming majority of climate scientists…

      Read more
    41. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Chris Harper

      Bob Carter has perfected the method, beloved of climate change deniers, of making one paragraph sentence proclamations that take reams of logic and evidence to rebut in the sure and certain knowledge that those who can provide the rebuttal are usually not interested and those that are looking for quick answers won’t bother reading it.
      You say you look at the science, do the job yourself. Get Bob Carter’s papers on climate change. They are here http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm and check out the reasons he (or usually others) give for past “magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events”. A word of advice, look up the references he gives just to check that they are rigorous and really do support his statements. Then find out how many of the causes for these past rates of change exist in the modern era. You might be surprised. Don’t worry others have done it before you

      report
    42. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Chris Harper

      "....m sorry Mike, but I do. I have read the climategate emails, and I am appalled that these people are taken seriously...."

      Well Chris, you just shredded any credibilty that you may have had.

      report
    43. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Adam wrote: "The IPCC produces a summary of the climate science, which of course will involve the hundreds of experts involved arriving at a consensus with regards to what the science is telling us"

      These reports are produced ignoring opinions of hundreds of experts who tell that the global warming is a scam. One nice example is a case happened at the American Physical Society, please read this link fully

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/more-turmoil-at-the-american-physical-society-over-global-warming-issue

      Read more
    44. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      A link to Anthony Watts and an analogy between climate science and Lysenkoism? Well I'm convinced...

      report
    45. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Adam, this link which you have not bothered to read described a real event when opinions of 300 scientsits were just ignored and not even counted. This is just one out of many events like that, therefore the credibility of 97% consensus can be simply ignored as well because this value does not represent a real value at all.

      Also, if you are a climate scientist, could you please put a model in place in here to reproduce the temperature behaviour. Please put all assumptions and variables so that…

      Read more
    46. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      If you believe the "hundreds of experts who tell that the global warming is a scam" you will undoubtedly be able to list all the government in the world who are taking no action because they also believe these experts. That is the ones that agree with you.

      report
    47. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Mike,

      Do you, or do you not, want me to read what 'real' scientists have to say? Or do you wish to pick and choose what I look at?

      Is it that what they say in public is to be lauded but what they say between themselves, where they think no one else will see it, is to be ignored?

      report
    48. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Ken Alderton wrote: "you will undoubtedly be able to list all the government in the world who are taking no action because they also believe these experts"

      First, as I mentioned before, in the US during the last presidential elections global warming was not even mentioned, as opposed to several years back. Rings the bell?

      Second, I recently travelled around the UK and talked to lots of people about energy prices. In the UK people are not giving a $#@ about global warming now as their bills…

      Read more
    49. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      You have completely avoided listing governments “who are taking no action because they also believe these experts. Instead you have responded with vague statements and speculations on public opinion in the US, UK, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia and China. All of these countries are taking action based on the science of climate change as these extracts from official policy documents attest.
      United States - “In short, America stands at a critical juncture. Today, President Obama is putting forward…

      Read more
    50. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Ken Alderton wrote: "You have completely avoided listing governments “who are taking no action because they also believe these experts"

      I know that the best skill of PhD students now is copy/paste, otherwise you would not tell what you said, i.e. the public opinion is one thing and countries driven by politicians are doing another thing. Politicians in countries I listed would do what the public tells them, otherwise they are not elected.

      However, to make the whole thing clear for you and as…

      Read more
    51. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Everything you say here fails to address the challenge I made. "List the countries that have failed or refused to take action because they believe the experts who say that global warming is a scam".
      The simple fact is that the declared policy of the governments of all the countries that you have mentioned is based on the "conventional" science that global warming is real and is caused by the emmission of greenhose gases. Not one of them has based their policy on the belief that global warming is a scam.

      report
    52. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      We read very well, thank you What was it we are supposed to read?
      What is a "climate dogmatist". If it someone who dogmatically insists on facts and evidence and not conjecture then I plead guilty?

      report
    53. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      So it's tectonic influences, undersea vulcanism the sun etc, and not the greenhouse effect warming the troposphere, cooling the stratosphere, warming the upper ocean, and currents warming deeper ocean layers. Could you please refer me to these papers, which point to tectonic influences and solar activity please Elena? There is a really good graph, "Skeptics guide to Global warming, Change in Earths Total Heat Content" , Looks to me like a three year old has scrubbed out the ocean heat.
      http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/02/how-to-cherry-pick-in-pictures/

      report
    54. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice kelly wrote: The more I think about "tectonic influences" the more laughable the idea becomes"

      Are you saying that tectonics is not in your scientific equation when calculating temperatures?

      Then stop laughing and start reading real scientific articles. For example, this one
      http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=791&noexcl=true&t=Earthwise%20Issue%2024%2C%20Tectonic%2Dscale%20climate%20change
      and particularly read the words

      “there is no doubt that the most fundamental changes in the Earth’s climatic history are triggered by tectonic events”

      Or this scientific paper
      https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/deconto_tectonics&climate.pdf
      which in detail covers the link between tectonics and climate.

      LOL, I see your mathematical climate models do not include fundamental things. Of course, you excluded tectonics, the Sun, space weather and any space events and included in your equation only humans. Well done, this is a real climate science.

      report
    55. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Ken Alderton wrote:"We read very well, thank you What was it we are supposed to read? What is a "climate dogmatist"

      Nope. You were supposed to read that countries I mentioned in my links are doing NOTHING practically to handle the global warming thing. I understand that the CEO's logic might suggest that participation in meetings is doing something but people's logic is different, i.e. if meetings have no result and some countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc prevent decisions to be made…

      Read more
    56. Michael Anderson

      Engineer

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Please explain then, Adam, who will make the ruling on what precisely constitutes a climate scientist; create an acceptable definition of an anthropogenic global warming believe/non-believer; develop the appropriate questions to determine whether a scientist is or is not such a person; create a screening mechanism for surveying personnel; employ surveying personnel; monitor and review surveying personnel; survey the entirety of the scientific community on a regular basis; and allow the processes to be sufficiently transparent for full public scrutiny; as well as obtain clean funding for such a venture.

      That. Is. Fantasy.

      report
    57. Michael Anderson

      Engineer

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      I love a good false dilemma. How about a 3rd option:

      3) The Scientific Method faction, who hold that arguments from authority are meaningless in a scientific debate, so let the best argument win.

      Consensus is that most people think the Earth revolves around the Sun. But they are quite mistaken. The Earth and the Sun and the rest of the planets/planetesimals simultaneously revolve around the same point that happens to lie within the Sun's radius. But please, tell me more about how effective consensus is.

      report
    58. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Michael Anderson

      As I've already explained above, scientists don't sit around and vote on various scientific issues. A consensus is what we observe when many scientists arrive, via the scientific method, at the same conclusion independently.

      This "I don't care how many experts accept AGW - show me the data!" line is mere posturing, because you know all too well, as I do, that no amount of evidence will actually persuade you to change your mind. The overwhelming majority of climate experts accept AGW, I'd like you to offer an explanation as to how that's possible if the evidence is, in your opinion, to the contrary. Are all of these scientists incompetent or corrupt?

      report
    59. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Which links are you talking about? I can find no link that you provided to me or anyone else that shows that the UK, US, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia and China “are doing NOTHING practically to handle the global warming thing.” The report from Bloomberg just said that “The United Nations global warming talks have been set back by six months” Is this the evidence? The two links that you do provide in this post say exactly the opposite, that the Czech government have been engaged in subsidising solar panel to reduce carbon emissions which they are now proposing to cut back but not stop.
      Again you fail to address the challenge but choose to go all over the place. I have provided you with the official climate change policies of the 6 countries you nominated and they are all based on the conventional science. You have yet to provide a single case of a government refusing to take action because it believed you expert’s view that it is all a scam

      report
    60. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Adam - “Ok, I'm calling Poe.”

      Ok, I’m calling an individual who hasn’t got the cojones to use his full name which I understood was a prerequisite for commenting at TC. So don’t reach for your hanky if everybody, quite rightly, completely ignores anything you have to say. Man up sunshine.

      report
    61. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      It's true. Until you know someone's surname, their argument can't be evaluated against the evidence.

      report
    62. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Ken Alderton wrote: "Which links are you talking about? I can find no link that you provided to me or anyone else that shows that the UK, US, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia and China “are doing NOTHING practically to handle the global warming thing.”

      It appears you do not read the text from links or, as usually, scan rather than read. Okay, here is another link
      http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/russian-stance-a-potential-block-to-climate-deal-20130615-2oaga.html

      with key words…

      Read more
    63. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      You continue to claim that the sources you quote say things that they don’t. Please quote the words, sentences or paragraph that says or even infers that Russia is “doing NOTHING practically to handle the global warming thing.” What I read is that they are failing to support a UN consensus of what action should be taken. They are disagreeing with a particular course of action not refusing to take action.
      Both sources you quote for the position of the Czech Republic say that the subsidies for renewable…

      Read more
    64. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Re: Please quote the words, sentences or paragraph that says or even infers that Russia is “doing NOTHING practically to handle the global warming thing.” What I read is that they are failing to support a UN consensus of what action should be taken. They are disagreeing with a particular course of action

      Russia, Ukraine and whoever else did not want to sign anything at Doha because they are not going to do anything to follow Kyoto targets.
      Please see this
      http://www.rtcc.org/2013/03/18/russia-new-2020-target-could-see-emissions-rise-by-30

      Read more
    65. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Re: Czech Republic say that the subsidies for renewable energy solar panels will continue

      Ken, the reality is that lots of countries around the world, including Czech Republic and the UK, are cutting subsidies to green companies COMPLETELY but not partially as you said.

      Please read the following links
      http://www.praguepost.com/~thinkmag/praguepost.com/business/22549-eclipse-of-renewable-power-criticized-by-environmental-groups
      Quote:” According to the proposed law, yet to be considered by…

      Read more
    66. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Re: The IPCC produces a summary of the climate science, which of course will involve the hundreds of experts involved

      Someone here told about many thousands of experts.
      I am just wondering if anyone could provide a list of these "experts" as a summary with their credentials, degrees, etc. Please do not provide a list of organisations as this list does not mean anything. For example, our local computer society may support the global warming hoax in their declaration but 90% of computer scientists who are the members of ACS never signed anything. It is just our ACS top guys put a document in because of pressure from our previous goverment.

      So, where is the list of thousands of experts with names and degrees in anys ciences? The world wants to see these guys.

      report
    67. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      [I am just wondering if anyone could provide a list of these "experts" as a summary with their credentials, degrees, etc.]

      I guess if you wanted to know who the authors of the IPCC report are you could have checked, oh I don't know, the IPCC website? --

      Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg1-ar5-authors.pdf

      The 2000 page long report produced by Working Group I cites some 9,200 scientific publications. Please refer to the references in the report to identify the experts involved.

      Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg2-ar5-authors.pdf

      Working Group III (Mitigation): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg3-ar5-authors.pdf

      report
    68. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      You only have to go to the IPCC report here: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and go to each of the Working Groups and then to the Contributors section of each Working Group and you will find the names and affiliations of all the contributors by Chapter. The structures of the Working Groups are different and so the contributors are listed in different styles and places but it's not hard to follow. Names of contributors only are listed at the start of each chapter of the Working Group reports (when finalised). The sources of all the information in the reports are referenced as normal. You can compile you own list. Those parts of the world that have read any of the reports have already seen the names of "these guys"

      report
    69. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Re: You only have to go to the IPCC report here: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and go to each of the Working Groups and then to the Contributors section of each Working Group and you will find the names and affiliations of all the contributors by Chapter.

      Thanks Ken, although I know this. I was talking about thousands of scientists list as someone here several days ago said that there are 38000 or so climate scientists putting their opinions. So, I was interested to see that list.

      In relation…

      Read more
  5. Henry Verberne

    Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

    News Ltd should perhaps call itself "Misinformation Ltd".

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Somebody else here (sorry to steal your thunder) refers to that august corporation as Limited News - I always rather liked that one as well.

      I tend to refer to 'The Australian' as White Right Daily, in order to properly compare it with it's balanced opposite Green Left Weekly.

      report
    2. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Words matter. Misinformation is 'incorrect' info, an error generally accidental or poorly researched. Disinformation is intentional and indicates gross incompetence for any Journalist to do it repeatedly. When there is no sanction by the employer it often indicates "management approval by default".
      Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation - Dissemination of such misleading information. - disinformation is misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinformation
      How about BS Ltd. ? :)

      report
  6. Paul Richards

    integral operating system

    "We measured scepticism as the articles that rejected the scientific consensus position of climate science: that humans are contributing to climate change. To start with we asked: does the article agree or disagree with the consensus position?" Such a clear stream of logic.
    Still this is a difficult leap for many as they are still going through some of the 'fives stages of grief' over the concept. The many comments on threads here on climate change make the stages very evident. But opaque to those going through them.
    ___________________________
    http://goo.gl/snPo9m

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Paul Richards

      So true ... human psychology is back grounding everything. The bio-human version of the NSA? Grief, clear as bell to those NOT going through it, or who have already done their personal work and returned to reality again. eg Buddhist saying: Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Post-enlightenment - Chop wood, carry water. :)

      report
  7. Sean Arundell

    Uncommon Common Sense

    Two good referecen sources are: "What is climate change scepticism?" Study identifies two main types: epistemic scepticism and response scepticism. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001477
    "Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change." Study highlights Climate Change Scepticism is strongly determined by Environmental and Political VALUES (world view beliefs social class) rather than by education or knowledge. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011000173

    report
  8. Darren Kay

    Private trader

    Thanks for another interesting article Prof. Bacon. It's important we keep tabs on our media moguls and their mouthpieces.

    As of June 2013, 34% of Australians polled don't believe in climate change (http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_ClimateOfTheNation2013_web.pdf). This figure is surprisingly high.

    One might have thought that as a layperson on this issue (the vast majority of us), that you would defer to the research of the subject matter experts (climate scientists…

    Read more
  9. Jack McCadden

    Analyst

    I think the skew in News Corp's report recently was more to do with wanting to sway the 2013 election result than anything to do with climate change.

    Way back when (2007), Rupert was clearly positive on green initiatives;

    http://voices.yahoo.com/rupert-murdoch-taking-news-corp-green-367497.html?cat=15

    His coverage of Rudd in the 2007 election was quite favourable, or at least nowhere near as biased as his coverage in 2013. He quickly lived to regret not opposing Rudd's march to the lodge and had it in for the labor government ever since. The carbon tax was obviously a focus point for the electorate so what better way to stir up negative sentiment than to question the science behind climate change.

    Murdoch doesn't make steel, or smelt aluminium so a carbon tax wouldn't concern him much at all. Labor threatening to change media ownership laws is a different matter.

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Re: "Way back when (2007), Rupert was clearly positive on green initiatives;.." maybe so, maybe not behind closed doors. Rupert (I'm still an Australian aren't I?) Murdoch (god bless his cotton socks) and some of his Corp Board members, family members, News Corp executives, staff, and Private Detectives also obfuscate, spin, distract, deny the obvious, destroy evidence, say one thing in public and something else in private, and possibly knowingly with intent LIE to UK Parliamentary inquiries, Royal Commissions, Police, Politicians worldwide, shareholders, and the public endlessly. Is it over 30 or 50 key News Corp Executives & Staff are up on Criminal Charges including Conspiracy to "pervert the course of justice"? eg Trial Judge says British Justice on Trial http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723801

      report
  10. Sean Arundell

    Uncommon Common Sense

    Re: Sceptical Climate Report: Part One February and July 2011 [...] "overall, the coverage was very strongly opposed to the Gillard’s government’s carbon policy. Negative coverage outweighed positive coverage by 73% to 27%. The coverage by News Corp, which dominates Australia’s print media, was even more biased (Finkelstein, 2012, p. 58). It published 82% negative stories compared to 18% that were positive. By comparison, Fairfax Media was more evenly balanced with its Melbourne masthead The Age…

    Read more
  11. Geoff Henley

    Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

    "That’s a very high level of scepticism when you consider that these stories are rejecting findings that over 97% of the world’s climate scientists support."

    So what is it that '97% of the world’s climate scientists support'? CAGW bigaders are rarely able to provide any clear definition of this. The Cook et al. paper contains 3 different definitions which are used interchangeably no doubt to create a level of confusion.

    And what is the definition of a climate scientist anyway? Is someone who investigates the supposed effects of a changing climate on some obscure moth species or whatever really a climate scientist? They they anymore qualified to comment on the causes of climate change than a physicist or chemist ot geologist. I doubt it?

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      RE: Are the active 27,000 plus Climate related Scientists, Technicians, Computer Modelling & Data exerts, and academics "anymore qualified to comment on the causes of climate change than a physicist or chemist or geologist. I doubt it?" - In a word? YES.
      RE: "So what is it that '97% of the world’s climate scientists support'?" - In a word? SCIENCE
      Read what this Science has researched, analised, and concludes here for yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UnNClflmh8F
      Real IPCC connected Climate Scientists and real authors of valid Scientific Papers explain it for the public here: www.realclimate.org

      report
    2. Geoff Henley

      Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Like a typical warmist you are unable to define what 97 per cent even refers to. How can you quote something when you don't even know what it means.

      report
    3. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      "typical warmist" - gosh I'm cut to the core by this egregious label. The thing I am mate, is typical. lol But OK fine, you used the term 97% first, so you DEFINE it Geoff. Supporting references that you base your use of the numbers and the 'definition' you deem correct are welcomed. Go right ahead. Take all the time and space you need. :)

      report
    4. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      The LAST thing I am mate, is typical. Uncommon Common Sense sums it up quite well thank you.

      report
    5. Geoff Henley

      Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      "you used the term 97% first, so you DEFINE it Geoff."

      False. The author of this article used it first. The article has a link to paper by Cook et al with the a misleading and somewhat meaningless title.

      Since you don't seem to know what the 97% stands here some options:

      97% of climate scientists:

      (a) believe climate change is happening

      (b) believe humans cause climate change

      (c) endorse AGW

      (d) believe humans are responsible for more than 50% of the warming since 1950

      (e) believe humans are causing the earth to heat dangerously

      (a),(b) & (c) are poorly defined and include a large proportion of sceptics anyway.

      (d) & (e) are not supported by any credible research

      So when alarmists/warmists trot out the 97% figure they making a claim that is either poorly defined or not supported by any credible rersearch. Cook et al uses three of these definitions in order to create confusion.

      report
    6. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      I know what it means and have done so for ages. My prior comments stand. Why you've decided I am the one who is to be bullied over it is well, very weird indeed. Have at it! And have a nice day. :)

      report
    7. Geoff Henley

      Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      "I know what it means and have done so for ages. "

      If you know what it means, then why don't you enlighten me instead of being vague and evasive.

      I'll repeat. When alarmists/warmists trot out the 97% figure they making a claim that is either poorly defined or not supported by any credible rersearch.

      report
    8. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      RE: " why don't you enlighten me" - because you don't deserve it.

      report
    9. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean Arundell wrote: RE: ""So what is it that '97% of the world’s climate scientists support'?" - In a word? SCIENCE"

      THis value of 97% was obtained just using fraud and therefore is not credible at all.
      I recommend reading just one example out of very many where the American Physical Society described fundamental frauduent activities at this society in relation to climate change matters and how lots of scientific climate skeptics, who are by the way scientists, were not listened to. Many of…

      Read more
    10. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Hi Elena, I agree with your comment "This is not science at all Sean" Indeed it is politics, but not in the way you intended it to mean. It's also "ego defensiveness" as well as a collective reaction by *some* Physicists no longer being attended to as the "heroes" of the science world. $ was involved here that is for sure, as the previous high levels of Govt Funding and Kudos they used to receive in a by-gone age of Nuclear Physics and military requirements was being superceded by the modern need…

      Read more
    11. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean, the biggest challenge with climate “science” is very simple. In order for it to be taken seriously like the other sciences this climate one shall stay away from politics, which is not possible when politics pays the vast majority of their “research” bills.

      Political lobby just simply has vested interests in promoting of alarmists views. Just take a simple example with this investment in 2009 when global warming “science” was growing up
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

      Read more
    12. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena, I don't base my judgments upon what is written or said in the Mainstream or Alternative Media. Period! I have better things to do in my life than to spend it doing endless "fact checking" to be sure a Journalist is actually telling the truth and presenting a full story with a frank unbiased assessment of whatever the topic is about. Frankly you are wasting your time here. Though others may well click on the links. When you have something that is actually about the Climate Science itself, go…

      Read more
    13. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean Arundell wrote: "Does the AMA allow discussion internally or externally by Medical members that dispute the validity and consensus over mandatory Immunisation, or Insulin use for Diabetics?"

      Sean, you used this example so many times and got a valid reply on this one already at some point from someone below but still continue using it.
      The fundamental difference between immunisation and climate "science" is very simple.

      Sixty eight scientific papers support that immunisation may cause…

      Read more
    14. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean Arundel wrote: "CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, is Australia's national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world...
      NASA..."

      Yes Sean, CSIRO is funded by the government and you would see what would happen if the current government cuts their funds. CSIRO would immediately transform from climate alarmists to mild climate alarmists and then move on further. The same would happen with NASA and, by the way…

      Read more
    15. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      I say Elena I really admire your determination and enthusiasm for the future. I really believe your argument is on incredibly thin ice if you are relying upon the "wisdom and insight and judgment" of the American people as flagship for intelligence. I agree though let's just wait. In fact let's us let Mother Nature decide? She pays no heed to facile debates or to public opinion, not to politics nor economics. Nature follows fixed natural Law. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Look me up in a decade Elena, and let me know your opinion then. Take care in the meantime. :)

      report
    16. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean Arundell wrote: "you are relying upon the "wisdom and insight and judgment" of the American people as flagship for intelligence"

      I just demonstrated how politicians change their attitude to global warming depending on voting taking into account people’s opinions on that.

      If you would like to see how government funded research organizations create reports about global warming depending on budgets they have, I can give you a simple example of a discussion between the president of any country…

      Read more
    17. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Well we all have the opportunity to gain direct personal experiences in our professional careers Elena. As to public opinion etc I could write a PhD on it. fwiw public opinion doesn't come from the public. It's a top down kind of animal. Same as Corporate Culture and every other kind of structured organisation. Roman Catholic Church is a good example, as people go trawling through it's history and others in the Royal Commission (that's in Australia btw). A major change in 'attitude" at the top flows…

      Read more
    18. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Geoff henley wrote: "Are the active 27,000 plus Climate related Scientists, Technicians, Computer Modelling & Data exerts, and academics "anymore qualified to comment on the causes of climate change than a physicist or chemist or geologist. I doubt it?"

      Sean Arundell wrote:"- In a word? YES."

      It appears Sean does not even know that climate scientists are people having qualification in physics, climatology, geology, thermodynamics, chemistry and lots of other disciplines. All these specialists contribute to this science and its models and conduct research direcvtly and indirectly contributing to the outcome.

      report
    19. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Appearances are deceiving Elena. Best not to deceive yourself, nor others. Kind of has a way to bite you on your own ass 'mate'. Ask any zoologist about salt water crocodiles. They'll tell you the Truth, as do I. :)

      report
  12. Geoff Henley

    Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

    This whole article is based on a false premise. The author tries to equate the questioning of the 'theory' of CAGW to the rejection of climate science. But this is a judgement that the author is not qualified to make.

    The correct analysis should involve a comparison between those who accept the theory of CAGW and those who question or reject this theory. It has little to do with rejection or acceptance of climate science since many uncertainties still exist regarding the causes of climate change.

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      No, but the working scientists in relevant fields are qualified to judge and they have done so. There is a convenient summary of their work in the comprehensive, independent IPCC reports.

      report
    2. Steve Hindle

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      The title is also very misleading. "Big Australian media reject climate science"
      This is followed by the claim that "One third of articles in Australia’s major newspapers do not accept the consensus position of climate science."
      The flip side is that two thirds of articles in Australia’s major newspapers do accept the consensus position on climate science.

      report
    3. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Steve Hindle

      Still depends on which newspaper each individual reads and relies upon as providing decent Journalistic standards to accuracy and research.

      report
    4. Chris Harper

      Engineer

      In reply to Steve Hindle

      Steve,

      Absolutely.

      On their own data the more appropriate headline would be "Big Australian media affirm climate science".

      Why did they choose the less accurate but more provocative headline?

      report
  13. Elena Berwick

    Accountant

    let's get the terminology right first.

    Climate Scientists.

    These are people with relevant degrees like meteorologists, physicists, geologists, climatologists and so on. Their job is conducting research in relevant fields, generating theories, issuing forecast reports. In physics they usually get it much better than in climatology where the models fail for 1 week forecast, never mind 20 years forecast. This means modeling has 20-30% accuracy but somehow for 20 years this accuracy goes up to…

    Read more
    1. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena, your categorisation of climate scientists is completely ridiculous. More money is made by greenhouse gas corporations than the combined incomes of scientists and non greenhouse gas industries by what? A factor of ten, One hundred, or 1000? Prove what you say with some numbers, or you could alternatively download the full science basis report from the IPCC
      www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf
      and read some science written by working scietists, instead of chucking sand and mud.

      report
    2. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice Kelly wrote: "your categorisation of climate scientists is completely ridiculous. More money is made by greenhouse gas corporations than the combined incomes of scientists and non greenhouse gas industries by what? A factor of ten, One hundred, or 1000? Prove what you say with some numbers"

      From the financial point of view the scam looks really simple and you should not be a rocket scientist to understand it. If you still don’t, please consult your accountant.

      Lots of companies all over…

      Read more
    3. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena your preferred reliance upon media sources, bloggers, anti-science activists, and Right Wing Nut Jobs is supercilious. I believe the public has a right to know what the name of your "accountancy" business is or what firm you may currently work for, in order that they are able to make an informed judgment about who they may retain for their critical needs for professional reliable accountancy work to best practice standards as opposed to irrational deviations from the norm. It's only fair people can avail themselves to such information in their own self-interest. imho it is only fair and reasonable that you are treated in the very same manner in which you speak to others. Don't you think? :)
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supercilious

      report
  14. Sean Arundell

    Uncommon Common Sense

    Was a GREAT question to start this article: "Australia has the most concentrated press ownership in the world. What does that mean for significant issues such as climate change?"
    I have other related questions and offer some additional information/refs some readers may like to reflect upon one day: Is News Corp credible, reliable, ethical or functional? Is it "fit for purpose' as part of the 4th estate, a critical pillar of a functional modern healthy Democracy & Polity?
    Latest News regarding…

    Read more
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      The Age of Illusion: Egalitarianism vs Meritocracy (short extracts)
      An Interview with author Chris Hayes. His new book, Twilight of the Elites, has a theory about why everything is going to straight to hell. The culprits aren’t the typical cast of Republicans, fundamentalists, and rednecks. It’s the Meritocracy that did it.
      The book is strongly influenced by the work of Christopher Lasch, whose 1994 book Revolt of the Elites presages many of Hayes’ arguments, and Robert Michels, an early twentieth…

      Read more
    2. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      TheCon: 7 October 2013 Book review: Breaking News - Sex, Lies & the Murdoch Succession by Paul Barry. quoting: [...] To these two performances, there was a common thread: avoid responsibility, but create impressions suited to the occasion, even if they are contradictory.
      Contradictions like this seem not to bother Murdoch. He is willing to tell people whatever he thinks it is in his interests to tell them, regardless of truth or logical consistency. Through this book, a picture emerges of a man…

      Read more
    3. William Raper

      Retired

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Poor Rupert is copping it in more than one place at the moment, see "The Power of One" by Prof. Robert Manne, pp22-29, The Monthly, Nov 2013. Interesting that Rupert controls some 70% of Australian Media and that no Government will take him on!

      report
    4. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to William Raper

      Thx. fwiw the beginning sentence includes the most critical aspect of the 'response' by Murdoch of the UK criminality to protect his (and shareholders) News Ltd media empire ie "News Corp – the recently separated and financially challenged publishing branch of the Murdoch media empire" - an intentional change of corporate structure to defend against the possibility of Murdoch losing his Fox TV Network and Fox Cable News broadcasting Licenses in the USA, as well as control of BSkyB in the UK. The…

      Read more
  15. Geoff Henley

    Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

    "We measured scepticism as the articles that rejected the scientific consensus position of climate science: that humans are contributing to climate change."

    This is in fact not the 'scientific consensus position of climate science' as used by the IPCC which states something along the lines of human activities being responsible most of the recent warming. This represents quite a significant misunderstanding of the consensus definition on behalf of the author.

    The consensus definition as stated in this article would in fact include a large number of those considered sceptics by the CAGW advocates.

    Another error is that the author refers to the IPCC as the 'International' Panel on Climate Change when the correct term in 'Intergovernmental'.

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      Try this jacket on for size Geoff Henley: Global warming - It is now considered even more certain (> 95%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Natural internal variability and natural external forcings (eg the sun) have contributed virtually nothing to the warming since 1950 – the share of these factors was narrowed down by IPCC to ± 0.1 degrees.
      That IS one of the current consensuses of Climate Science as at Sept. 2013. Consensus…

      Read more
  16. Noel McFarlane

    Cycling advocate

    According to the IPCC the planet has about 25 years of Co2 emissions at current levels and then we have reached the total carbon in the atmosphere which delivers the 2 degree rise which in turn is regarded as the limit we can withstand before unacceptable consequences occur. That means we are heading to a point of zero emissions, a 100% reduction in emissions.
    In this context the Australian media has covered a federal election and its aftermath. There has been a massive campaign, supported by the…

    Read more
    1. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Noel McFarlane

      Noel Mcfarlane wrote: "According to the IPCC the planet has about 25 years of Co2 emissions at current levels and then we have reached the total carbon in the atmosphere which delivers the 2 degree rise which in turn is regarded as the limit we can withstand"

      Poor planet. Several days ago someone told in here that we have 50-70 years left, in several days we are coming to 25 years left, I am just guessing what the next prediction would be.

      I am just wondering what IPCC will be doing if there is no climate change. Obviously, these IPCC guys needs jobs and they do not want to be redundant.

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      They have jobs,Elena. they are working scientists. The IPCC bit is a part-time gig for them.

      You can't even get the most basic facts right, can you?

      report
    3. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix MacNeill wrote: "They have jobs,Elena. they are working scientists. The IPCC bit is a part-time gig for them."

      Yes, they have jobs and they would be trying to keep these jobs forever. In such organizations scientists do not exist. Such organizations have bureaucrats working full-time.

      report
    4. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Can't! It's the new Global Religion of Ideological Elites and their naive blind adherents. Belief and adherence to the Religion is all.
      None realising that it was intentional to create this environment pitting the public against each other in a typical divide and conquer strategy of a proxy Class Warfare. This historical pattern shows up again and again of desperate deluded despots clinging to their power and psychological need for control. All the while refusing to see the reality of their sinking ship hit the iceberg long ago and it's only a matter of time before the jig is up. The closer to the end the nastier things will get. Don't fight your neighbour for they are not the enemy here, but only pawns on the chessboard.

      report
  17. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    This analysis of Wendy Bacon's work by academic Don Aitkin (foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra), might be of interest. Perhaps The Con can re-publish in full in the interests of having a well rounded conversation on this topic.

    From "Global warming and ‘climate change’ in the press"

    http://donaitkin.com/global-warming-and-climate-change-in-the-press/

    "I listened last week to an astonishingly ignorant radio interview…

    Read more
    1. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mark Hendrickx wrote: "when 97.4 per cent of scientists said that human beings were caused climate change, and they (the scientists) are truthful, why would newspapers be saying in effect that ‘climate change’ was a matter of open debate?"

      This is simply because the value of 97% was received via fraudulent activities when numerous scientists with their scientific sceptical opinions and rejections of the whole thing were ignored and bureaucrats from IPCC selected only those scientists who supported one view.

      Real scientists also complained that among those so called 97% lots of people had no degrees in relevant sciences at all and had no high ranking degrees (like PhD in climatology and similar).

      So, the value of 97% is just a misleading value which does not represent the whole scientific community.

      report
    2. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      @Elena dear lady you do not represent reason, intelligence, standard accounting principles (ala Maths), accuracy, literacy, common sense, nor logic. Which is fine of course. You're free to be who ever you choose to be. :)

      report
    3. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      This personal stuff does not work with me Sean and it is sad that you still cannot comprehend that. Also, your sentence clearly characterises what sort of "scientist" you are.

      report
    4. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc, Don Atkin has it all ass backwards. On the page you linked to he states: "If you believe in it, it doesn’t matter what the facts or evidence are."
      The obvious self-evident truth is that in our present reality: "It doesn’t matter what the scientific rigour shows exactly, nor what the facts and evidence is, if you do not believe in it, it's all a Lie and a socialist conspiratorial Plot on a global scale of epic proportions."
      Re: "...in the interests of having a well rounded conversation on…

      Read more
    5. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Well given reason and reality doesn't work for you Elena, what else is left but some flippant humour? :)

      report
    6. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena,
      Don wrote that, not me, I was merely providing a link to another opinion so a well rounded conversation could take place. Suggest you take it up with Don at the Link, or perhaps The Con could post it and the discussion could happen here.

      cheers
      M

      report
    7. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean,
      I appreciate you would like to continue your existence with your head in the sand, one that precludes minor matters such as facts and evidence, however some of us feel the need to point out that on climate matters the emperor is missing not only his clothes but his underwear as well. Your weak insults only do yourself a disservice. Ironically they also go against the terms of service you quote above.

      report
    8. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Sorry Marc no personal insult was intended. It's my larrikin sense of irreverent good humour. :)
      Talking about emperors clothes, do you have a spare hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U Maybe make a cuppa tea, put your feet up and and listen? There's this old ancient Buddhist saying that goes "God gave us two ears and two eyes so we could look and listen twice as much as we speak!" Works for me, been silent for decades on this topic. :)

      report
    9. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Hi Marc, I'd be interested in hearing what a qualified Geologist might have to say about the following for my unqualified benefit.
      Interview by CBC Radio New Brunswick USA - Post Carbon David Hughes New Shale Gas Report: Drill Baby Drill. Audio http://youtu.be/6r_UjRE1HvU PDF http://peakoil.com/geology/post-carbon-david-hughes-new-shale-gas-report-drill-baby-drill
      A provocative new analysis of so-called unconventional fuel reserves in the United States concludes that the exuberant forecasts are…

      Read more
    10. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sorry don't provide this sort of advice for free.

      report
    11. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      re Marcs previous comment "... to continue your existence with your head in the sand, one that precludes minor matters such as facts and evidence ..."
      It never ceases to amaze me how much facts and evidence I can find out about other people, for free! :-) It's been all my own pleasure Marc. Thanks so much for your co-operation in these matters. You've been very helpful :)

      report
    12. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      So do tell @MarcH .. "** Geologists in Australia will need to play a significant role in preparing similar material for Australia & ** Further research is required to determine the health risks of
      NOA in Australia."
      Has this research been done by Geologists Marc? Is the 'material' available Marc? Is this issue addressed adequately in ALL CSG etc Mining leases, test drilling and extraction activity ... and related Environmental issues and regional health affects Marc? You'd know for sure, wouldn't you? :)
      Oh for readers NOA is Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Marc is a leading expert on this topic in Australia, apparently. Unlike in Cliamte Science where he has absolutely ZERO expertise, training, or experience. Just like-minded "friends". iow an Aussie version of Lord the Fraud Monckton. <shrug> Lot's of talk, zero knowledge, and zero evidence to back up his public claims and opinions.

      report
    13. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      @Marc Hendrickx "On seeing the comment I alerted Phillips, suggesting the comment should be removed as it contravened ABC posting rules, namely, 4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt; 4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading; 4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene; 4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious; 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

      Well, yes it was off topic, but that was because it was a response to Hendrickx’s own off topic comment. I’m reminded of the story of the man who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan." :) Tralalala ... Australia's version of Lord "the liar" Monckton? Or just a bit slow when it comes to reason, logic, fallacies, and the dialectical method?

      report
  18. Elena Berwick

    Accountant

    There are only two ways to verify the applied science. The first is to simply test the theory by thinking up an experiment, which if the theory is correct, will give the predicted results. If the results differ from what was predicted, then the theory is simply wrong.

    The second method is replication. The experiment or research, as described in the paper, is repeated using the same data and methods. If the results differ, then there’s a problem with the paper. If they don’t, then again, it’s…

    Read more
    1. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Your basic premises are wrong and therefore everything that follows from them is wrong. Mathematical modelling is the so called third pillar of science and engineering, the other two are theoretical analysis and experimentation. The three are connected. Mathematical models are used every day of the week in my speciality, chemical engineering, to attack mass and energy transport problems like pipeline and heat exchanger design.
      Theories are constructed by taking observed data and describing how…

      Read more
    2. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Ken Alderton wrote: "Computer climate models are simply theories couched in complex mathematics needing a computer to handle"

      This is exactly what I wanted to say! The whole "science" in here is just a theory with no option to prove that the whole "science" is right or wrong. Therefore, the whole "science" is a matter of belief at this stage.

      Your modelling pillar, as you said, is just a tool to generate a theory. Applied science is not based on modelling only and experiments / replications are required. Again, as you said, the E=mc2 was verified via experiments in the end, whereas with climate stuff this is still a theory, which might be right or wrong.

      report
    3. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      But the computer climate models are being used to generate historical data which is then compared to the actual measurements of the past, This is a form of experimental verification. Comparing results derived from the theory (model) with actual results is also experimentation. So is making a prediction from the theory and then comparing it to actual measurments or outcomes. What has not been directly verified are the predictions of what will happen in the far future. Only the efflux of time will…

      Read more
    4. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Theories, Hypothesis', Evidence, Proven, Unproven, Facts, Guesses, Opinions, Beliefs and Religiosity. Maybe the following will sum it all up in a bow for Elena and thus clarify variations in thinking & beliefs? :)
      OR "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a VALID explanation…

      Read more
    5. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Succinctly put: "As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts…

      Read more
    6. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Re: But the computer climate models are being used to generate historical data which is then compared to the actual measurements of the past, This is a form of experimental verification

      Ken, computer models can be reliably verified to the past just going less than 200 years back. Going further means going to areas with much higher uncertainties as credible direct measurements do not exist.

      More importantly, verification "to the past" does not necessarily mean verification to the future.

      Finally, these models failed to explain our current 15 years period of slight cooling rather than warming because of high levels of uncertainty in such models. This failure is a clear indication that models are wrong.

      When models cannot be effectively verified by practical measurements, this is just a theory, which at this stage is a matter of belief or disbelief.

      report
    7. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Re: A fact is something that is supported by unmistakable (aka Incontrovertible) evidence. For example the rapid loss of Arctic Sea Ice.

      Sean, your words sound like a joke now.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

      Quote: "NASA announces new record grow of Antarctic sea ice extent...
      Researchers have measured a new record for sea-ice extent in the Antarctic. Why the white splendour is extending there while it is rapidly disappearing in the Arctic is a MYSTERY"

      This effectively means climate "scientists" did not expect to see this ice grow as per their smart computer models but they see it now. So, you quote one thing but quoting what is happening in Antarctica is very inconvenient for you. This is a usual strategy of climate "scientists" when MYSTERY is a disclaimer in science.

      The whole credibility of their predictions and models is gone.

      report
    8. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      Is 200 years of verification not enough? Which of the laws of physics and chemistry that held in the past won't hold in the future?
      You have just provided the perfect reason why I refuse to debate the science of climate change in forums such as this. You state a seemingly simple proposition "Finally, these models failed to explain our current 15 years period of slight cooling etc..." that are demonstrable false. But as you probably already know the demonstration would take several pages to provide . This is because climate science is complex and cannot be resuces to oneliners. There is not the space to provide the answer and most people would stop after the first 500 words.
      That is why seriuos climate scientists never debate in these forums.

      report
    9. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      @Andrew Gilmour re: WUWT" It's not my responsibility that you do not understand the basics about Climate Science and seek to inform yourself via the irrational at WUWT et al.
      That you and so many others defer to Cultic Thinking by freely choosing to behave as Self-ordained Ministers of the Anti Climate Science Church (ACSC Inc.) is not my problem but your own. Good luck with it. If you'd like to learn how think rationally I only charge $1000 per hour. It's worth every penny, even though I do have…

      Read more
    10. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Re: It's not my responsibility that you do not understand the basics about Climate Science

      "science" which failed to predict and explain ice grow in Antarctica and our current 15 years cooling trend is not science at all. This is a hoax.

      report
    11. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      There is NO "current 15 years cooling trend". Stop making stuff up, that's what Religious Cults do.
      Go and learn about the fact that the IPCC and the "science" doesn't make predictions to start with. They aren't biblical Messiahs nor modern day Prophets. So stop making that rubbish up as well. If you can't get the simplest things correctly in the words used and their actual meanings because you refuse to READ THE SCIENCE provided for you (free of charge), you are no use to anyone. Least of all yourself. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UnmwePlmh8F Includes links to the 9000+ Peer Reviewed Science Papers upon which the AR5 WGI Report is based. I dare you to read one of them with your own eyes. :)

      report
    12. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Re: Is 200 years of verification not enough?

      For events happening during millions of years of course not. It is like based on several measurements I would conclude that the distribution of the measurand is normal.

      I am not even going further asking you to explain why during the planet's history we see variations by several degrees when humans did not exist...If your "science" cannot explain todays events in Antarctica it would have no clue why exactly significant temperature variations occured…

      Read more
    13. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      Science OR Fiction OR a deviate green socialist plot by 27,000 +/- greedy little climate scientists and bureaucrats to rip off the world's naive taxpayers with an April Fools Hoax?
      "The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The…

      Read more
    14. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      You have absolutely no idea of the process for verification of models. Let me explain slowly. If you want to verify a model, say that predicts how atmospheric temperatue varies with carbon dioxide, you need a whole host of data giving temperature and CO2 at particular times. You input all the CO2 data and compare the prediction with the actual result. QED. If you have 300 sets of results from 200 years you have 60,000 sets of results, plenty. The only reason you might want to go back more than 200 years is if you wanted totes it agians high end CO2 results. That where ice cores come in.
      Go out and search the scientific papers and you will find hundreds that "explain why during the planet's history we see variations by several degrees when humans did not exist" . Their methods and results are widely varied but they are all scientifically rigourous.
      I will get to your other more eccentric comments in due time.

      report
    15. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Re: There is NO "current 15 years cooling trend".

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

      and

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here

      and lots of other sources. Unlike for the future Sean we are lucky enough to measure temperatures NOW and compare them with temperatires 10-15 years ago. Not seeing obvious TODAY's facts is perfectly fine for climate alarmists.

      report
    16. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Andrew Gilmour

      <sigh> re http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here = [Article originally published by Global Research in November 2008] that is 5 years ago now & Don J. Easterbrook (born January 29, 1935, in Sumas, Washington) is a GEOLOGY professor emeritus (RETIRED) at Western Washington University. Dr. Easterbrook holds that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. = NOT a climate scientist, NOT a peer reviewed Paper either, and not accepted by anyone bar himself and the usual cohorts…

      Read more
    17. Andrew Gilmour

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Re: You have absolutely no idea of the process for verification of models. Let me explain slowly. If you want to verify a model, say that predicts how atmospheric temperatue varies with carbon dioxide, you need a whole host of data ...

      Just put aside my skills around models as I was doing mathematical modeling a lot and please concentrate on the subject.

      Speaking about modeling of the future my point is very simple and basic. The Earth’s temperature depends on lots of factors, including…

      Read more