The article smears many noted climate scientists, and is juvenile in the extreme.

The Conversation and Michael Ashley owe many distinguished scientists an apology with this piece.

Care to be specific?

Or should readers assume this "juvenile" article that "smears many noted climate scientists" (or denialists at least) is without error?

If you follow Ashley's foolish link you'll see the specifics.

How amusing. Should Michael Ashley really apologise for content he did not write and errors that Marc Hendrickx has yet to specifically identify? I don't think so.

The term "fools" is Ashley's and not John Cooks. It really surprises me that The Con would allow this language. I have had posts removed here for less. Seems double standards are definitely in play.
Cook's list includes a number of distinguished scientists. I look forward to seeing both Ashley's and The Con's retractions and apologies.

Finally. Marc Hendrickx objects to the word "fools" rather than the link.

Fools is certainly a strong term, as Michael Ashley notes in his article. To back up this bold language, Michael Ashley has provided a link that shows that the people in question (some of whom are scientists) have made a series foolish statements about climate and the evidence for climate change.

The link is a smear site run by a noted climate alarmist. It lacks any credibility.
Both Michael Ashley and The Con need not cry foul when such language is returned in kind, unless of course they rectify the situation and apologise to those they unfairly smear.

If skepticalscience.com lacks any credibility, it should be trivial for Marc Hendrickx to identify the misquotes.

Andrew,
Your continued linkage of recent weather events to the enhanced greenhouse effect is a total misrepresentation of the peer reviewed literature and ignores recent and geological history. Like recent Hurricane Irene your argument does not have much puff. There is silence about it, because there is no link. As far as 1 in 100 year events go, with only 120 years or so of accurate records in Australia there would be many 1 in 100 years events still to come. We have not seen the worst of mother nature down under yet. Many extreme events have occurred with CO2 levels well below their current level.

Recent studies demonstrate climate sensitivity to increased GHG is exaggerated (eg Lindzen, 2011). I guess the headline "Look out luke warm conditions ahead", does not play well with media organisations, such as the ABC, that subscribe to sensationalism, and The Con that seem to live on a diet of climate alarm.

Who says it is flawed, you?
As a scientist how can I ignore it. Lindzen and Choi 2011 published in the peer reviewed press. Unlike Michael Ashley Lindzen he is suitably qualified in the area. He is a distinguished MIT professor. Why would you choose to ignore him?

If you are seeking to criticise his work, a recent simplified version of what i take to be his latest effort was presented at a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society on the 28 August. Here's a link to the presentation slides.
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/acs-2011-lindzen1.pdf

Seems odd that that someone who presents to the ACS is someone Ashley willfully derides.

As this series of posts is about the media's presentation of climate change. It is notable that Lindzen is among the missing at the ABC-are you beginning to see a pattern in the ABC's coverage?

Mike.
I don't question it. I question the degree of warming that alarmists claim is in the pipeline. I do not deny our impact on the climate,or the environment. It is a matter of degrees, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the impact, at least in terms of temerature will be on the low, rather than the high side.
In regard to our impact on the environment, this is being overlooked to our long term detriment as the environment lobby has been sucked into linking the issue with Catastrophic manmade global warming.

It has been published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.There is a link below. If you only rely on the ABC you would not know because it seems Richard Lindzen is persona non grata there. Here's the new paper.

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
Abstract:
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to
this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are
exaggerating climate sensitivity.

Dr. Lindzen has the full paper on his personal website here:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

The Australian frequently publishes op ed pieces by Bjorn Lomborg, who agrees with the problem but provides a different (and in my opinion more realistic) solution.

ABC Chairman identified Groupthink as a problem at the ABC in regard to its climate change coverage. How would you recognise it in other organisations?

Rather than quote a mis-informed non peer reviewed figure from insurer Munich Re, and claim that this is happening, why not use something that has been peer reviewed. Here's a link (below) to a peer reviewed paper by Neumayer and Barthel, 2010, that finds something entirely different:

"Independently of the method used,we find no significant upward trend in normalized disaster loss.This holds true whether we include all disasters or take out the ones unlikely to be affected by a changing climate. It also holds true if we step away from a global analysis and look at specific regions or step away from pooling all disaster types and look at specific types of disasters instead or combine these two sets of dis-aggregated analysis. Much caution is required in correctly interpreting these findings. What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters."

As Roger Pielke Jnr says:"Yet claims that global warming has led to increased disaster losses are a siren song to the media and advocates alike, with the most tenuous of claims hyped and the peer reviewed literature completely ignored. I don't expect that to change." http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html

The paper:

Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthel, Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: A global analysis, Global Environmental Change, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 18 November 2010, ISSN 0959-3780, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004.

The current situation is somewhat analogous to the early/mid 20th century when relativity and quantum mechanics arrived on the scene.

Decades after the new physics had been introduced and broadly accepted, a small number of recalcitrant scientists still did not accept it despite the overwhelming evidence.

Are papers still being accepted in the peer reviewed literature that provide credible evidence against the so called "new" physics? If so some examples would be nice. I am not aware of any published recently that question this rock solid area of physics, then you should be more up on this than I am.

The appearance of numerous peer reviewed articles that go against the so called consensus is a good indication that in regard to some aspects of climate science there is in fact no consensus. This puts the media in a difficult position as to what they should report on. In this respect The Australian has been true to the journalistic creed of balance, while the agenda driven ABC clearly has not.

In contrast to Marc Hendrickx assertion, there are a multitude of papers presenting alternatives to relativity and quantum mechanics each year.

An obvious example is various modified theories of gravity, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. Some of the papers can be found online at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&txt_logic=AND&text=modified+newtonian+dynamics

The MOND papers are interesting, but are not convincing evidence for relativity being wrong. Indeed, many MOND papers are just exploring the potential of alternate theories rather than claiming relativity is wrong. Similarly, the papers proposing alternates to anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) have yet to produce a convincing case against AGW.

Those denying anthropogenic greenhouse warming too often claim science is a closed shop but this just isn't the case.

So do you label the authors "quantum deniers" or is this something you just reserve for anyone publishing against Catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse warming, (CAGW)?

Marc Hendrickx (writer of Australian opinion pieces) is really stretching the limits of credibility. He claims science is effectively a closed shop, but when confronted with contrary evidence resorts to bluster.

Not all scientists presenting alternate scientific models are "deniers" (be it cosmology or climate science).

However, there is a small minority of alternate cosmology papers where the term "denial" is appropriate. Readers may wish to compare the situation in cosmology with that in the climate debate.

A small minority claim "redshifts" (the stretching of light from astronomical objects) do not principally result from the expansion of the Universe, but are intrinsic to the objects in question. They also claim patterns can be seen in the distribution of redshifts.

The purveyors of non-cosmological redshifts are often non-astronomers, retired or dead. They sometimes make use of outdated data rather than modern data, which would nullify their claims.

The purveyors of non-cosmological redshifts often provide heavily biased overviews of the literature, ignoring literature that clearly refutes their claims. No amount of evidence is sufficient for them to change their minds, and they reach the same conclusions regardless of the countering evidence.

These fringe scientists are have no real influence on current scientific debates in astrophysics. One of their few champions are curious websites, some of which can be found via http://www.crank.net/astronomy.html.

Michael Brown (someone who writes comments on blogs during work time) says I am stretching the limits of credibility, then claims to be in receipt of information from beyond the grave. To quote him " The purveyors of non-cosmological redshifts are often non-astronomers, retired or dead."

On this basis perhaps you can ask Feynman and Einstein what they think of CAGW.

What an odd comment from Marc Hendrickx.

He may be surprised to know that an astronomer's working hours are not strict 9-to-5 and (like many academics) most of my working weeks are longer than 40 hours.

It should be noted that there are genuine non-cosmological redshifts for extreme objects (e.g., light leaving the region close to event horizon) but most redshifts we measure for very distant objects are due to the expansion of the Universe.

An example of a purveyor of non-cosmological redshifts who died recently is Geoff Burbidge. He made great contributions to astronomy in the mid 20th century, but his work in recent decades on non-cosmological redshifts had almost zero impact on science. Einstein and Feynman are in a different league to someone like Geoff Burbidge.

It should be said that while Geoff Burbidge is an example of a purveyor of non-cosmological redshifts, the deceased Geoff Burbidge is now a was rather than an is.

Michael you say astronomer, but based on what what have said above are you sure its not Astrologer?

Marc Hendrickx's attempted humour and pedantry divert attention from the real argument.

As discussed above, dissenting opinions are tolerated within science, and are published very frequently.

However, dissenting opinions are on the receiving end of scorn when they ignore the relevant prior literature and data that could refute their arguments.

An example of a paper that appears to fall in the latter category is the recent Spencer paper in Remote Sensing (which Marc Hendrickx was championing for discussion by The Conversation). The flaws in this paper and the flaws in the review process that resulted in its publication have led to the resignation of the editor of Remote Sensing. His resignation letter is quite informative and can be found online at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

We absolutely should have pluralism but we should also have accuracy. Without accuracy it is not inevitable that the sound arguments will weed out the be bad.

The Australian's recent article on measurements from tide gauges contained a litany of errors, as discussed in the comments thread at http://theconversation.edu.au/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638

Stories that grossly distort the science (pro or anti-AGW) are doing a great disservice to the public.

A litany of errors is a gross distortion of the facts. These actually actually agreed with what was in the paper in question. Sea level decelerated in the tide gauges reported on. Did they or did they not?

The errors in question go far beyond the decleration in sea level rise measured at a few tidal gauges.

For a full discussion of the errors in The Australian's article, see the ABC's Media Watch piece (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3282940.htm) and The Conversation article (http://theconversation.edu.au/sea-levels-continue-to-rise-but-not-uniformly-csiro-2478).

The said decleration in sea level rise was actually measured in ALL the stations reported on in the paper in question, not just a few. Seems you are as guilty of misrepresenting information as you claim The Australian to be.

Sherry I don't like having words put in my mouth, I said nothing about global sea levels. Get it straight!
And you claim The Australian misrepresents. Hate to cliche but pot, kettle, black!

Marc Hendrickx would have more credibility if he always presented the facts without distortion.

As Sherry Mayo has correctly pointed out, my comment about "a few tidal gauges" obviously referred to the modest number of gauges in the entire Watson study.

Marc Hendrickx clearly believes that The Australian's choice of Howard Brady to comment on the paper as a "climate change researcher" was valid despite the fact (as noted by Michael Ashley), "Brady is a 70 year-old retiree who has published just seven scientific papers (on Antarctic sediments, not climate), the most recent one in 1983, following which he worked for 17 years in the oil industry".

If the anti-AGW arguments are strong, then it should be possible to present them without using any distortions or omissions of the facts.

Michael, you take great pleasure in making things up. I certainly think The Oz could have found someone better qualified than Brady to comment, they should also have pushed the CSIRO for comment on Brady's statements. The ABC are guilty of similar transgressions, as I have documented on my blog, on numerous occasions.

To suggest, as you seem to be doing, that CSIRO's projections of sea level rise are rock solid and beyond question is to misrepresent the science, and ignore the uncertainties involved. That global trends in sea level rise seem to be dropping away from recent highs would also have been worth mentioning and seeking an explanation of in the report, but I guess a newspaper can only do so much.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Andrew Hack's comment shows how the debate is easily distorted.

The results were not being disclosed by scientists prior to publication in the peer reviewed scientific literature (which is not unusual). The results were recently published in the science journal Nature and the ABC reported the story a few days ago.

The ABC story is online at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/08/29/3304715.htm

The CERN results were also mentioned in the comments thread following http://theconversation.edu.au/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638

There are many cautions regarding the CERN results, some of which are discussed in a Nature commentary "Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays" by Geoff Brumfiel. This commentary is behind the Nature paywall but I am sure copies of it can be found online.

Kirkby, the lead author of the paper notes "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step".

If you are interested in non peer reviewed articles on the possible effect on cosmic rays on the climate suggest also a look at the book The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change by Nigel Calder and Henrik Svensmark.

I suspect there are better references than this book. Calder and Svensmark very much sit on one side of the debate.

The Nature commentary "Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays" by Geoff Brumfiel is very useful, and while it is behind the Nature paywall, I am sure copies of it are online.

The IPCC has also commented on the available evidence for a link between cosmic rays and climate (circa 2007). There is no consistent evidence for a link between cosmic rays and climate, with different researchers getting different results for different periods of time. See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html