Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

How do people reject climate science?

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science…

In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change, people find ways to reject that evidence if it does not fit with their world view. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science in the face of strong evidence.

A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change.

For supporters of an unregulated free market, regulating polluting industries to reduce global warming is so unpalatable that they are far more likely to reject that climate change is happening.

The mechanism by which ideology such as this influences our scientific views is confirmation bias. We place greater weight on evidence that confirms our beliefs, while ignoring or resisting conflicting evidence. This can be a challenge when confronted with a convergence of evidence and a scientific consensus, but confirmation bias is up to the task. Let’s look at some examples.

The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence.

How do we spot cherry picking? It’s important to remember that there is no “their evidence” versus “our evidence”. There is only the full body of evidence.

If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking.

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead, they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it’s possible to find any short period during a long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly. Meanwhile the planet continues to build up heat – around 250 Hiroshima bombs worth since you started reading this article.

Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear.

So what happens when 97 out of 100 of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming?

Those who reject the scientific consensus lavish their attention on the 3% minority, magnifying their significance and turning a blind eye to the 97% of scientific experts.

If one’s world view is strongly free-market, the notion that our lifestyle might be damaging the planet is unpalatable. AAP/Tony McDonough

So how can ignoring the 97% be justified? Two words: conspiracy theory. There are a range of conspiracy theories out there, from sinister attempts to control the planet with a one world government to claims that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is falsifying their data for financial reasons, a form of global groupthink.

Roy Spencer, one of the minority of dissenters remaining in the climate science community, said:

If scientists are promised a career of financial support to find evidence of manmade climate change, they will do their best to find it.

Let’s look at Spencer’s claim in greater detail, keeping in mind the key characteristic of a conspiracy theorist: exaggerated claims about the omnipotence of the conspirators.

For human-caused global warming to be falsely manufactured, scientists would have to falsify the satellite data finding less heat escaping to space and fudge the measurements of downward infrared radiation that confirm an increased greenhouse effect.

Both the satellite and weather balloon records that find a cooling upper atmosphere along with a warming lower atmosphere (a signature of greenhouse warming) would have to be doctored. The fact that winters warm faster than summers and nights warm faster than days, both fingerprints of greenhouse warming, would have to be fabricated in a number of different temperature records.

What drives Roy Spencer to espouse the implausible theory that thousands of scientists spanning dozens of countries are engaged in a global fabrication of data?

His job at the University of Alabama in Huntsville is to analyse satellite measurements of the atmosphere, but he sees himself a little differently, describing his role as:

… a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

Spencer personifies the principle that ideology biases the way we process evidence.

One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.

Why do these public figures favour a non-peer reviewed non-expert who has a long history of self-contradiction? The psychological research on which experts we prefer tells us why. Confirmation bias sways us towards those voices that tell us what we want to hear.

Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points.

Arctic sea ice reached record lows in 2012. Arguing that this is meaningless because sea ice has been low before is an example of non sequitur - it does not follow. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre

An example is the accusation that climate scientists in the 1970s predicted global cooling. When you look at the actual peer-reviewed research in the 1970s, the papers predicting global warming from greenhouse gases far outweighed papers predicting cooling. Somehow, the warming papers escape the attention of those who reject climate science.

A common logical fallacy employed by climate contrarians is the “non sequitur”, Latin for “it does not follow”. This applies to arguments where the stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

The most cited example is “climate has changed naturally in the past therefore current warming must be natural”.

A recent variant argues, in response to this year’s record low in Arctic sea ice, that ice has been low in the past. This is logically equivalent to investigating a corpse with a gunshot wound and ruling out murder because people have died from natural causes before.

To reduce the influence of those who reject the science, confirmation bias and misleading rhetorical arguments need to be exposed. Now is as good a time as any to start practising so I recommend beginning with the inevitable deluge of comments to this article. Look for cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs.

You might think those who reject climate science would refrain from employing these methods in such an obvious fashion. But consider the Arctic sea ice example. On one contrarian climate blog, a commenter predicted five ways that people would avoid the inevitable implications of the precipitous drop in Arctic sea ice. Climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts fulfilled all five predictions.

Such reactions go to show that science rejection is an instinctive, emotional and ideological response to evidence that appears to threaten certain deeply-entrenched worldviews.

If you would like to discuss the psychology of accepting or rejecting the science of climate change, please feel free to comment below. Off-topic comments will be removed.

Join the conversation

717 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Comment removed by moderator.

    1. Ben Neill

      Mobile/Web Applications Developer

      In reply to John Coochey

      The article isn't trying to argue what we are doing is adequate at all... it is arguing that poor science is trumping good science.

      Where are -you- getting your information for that matter?

      report
    2. Alan John Emmerson

      Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority

      In reply to Ben Neill

      The original question was, 'How do skeptics and non believers reject climate science ?' The answer is ' They don't'.They reject the arguments of those styled "scientists" and any others who feed them pronouncements without proof..

      To convince me you must show me.
      Show me the genuine numerical data.
      Show me exactly what analysis you did, not just a synopsis, and justify your choice of method..
      Show me the results of the analysis.
      Show me how the conclusion flow from those results.

      Those are the requirements imposed on the design and construction of most of the built environment. Why should they not apply here.

      report
    3. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      Now Alan, I reckon that these air plane things are magick. I have no idea how they work. Perhaps if one says one doesn't believe another falls from the skies like a faerie. Held up by wishful thinking, a heck of a lot of avgas and the mystical powers of Mr Bernoulli's arithmetic.

      Not - not really. I've seen them and heard them. I've even been in them. But I wouldn't fly in one I'd designed myself.

      Now that's the thing. You know that the arithmetic here when dealing with climate is about…

      Read more
    4. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      Alan,
      This is my approach.
      I have read a number of papers and the problem is the conclusions are not supported by the actual results.
      In addition, extrapolation is the most risky of methods to make predictions, especially when it must make assumptions about the value of a variety of variables in the future.

      report
    5. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Which papers have you been able to fault Phil?

      Links please and perhaps some comments on the specifics of what's wrong with them.

      report
    6. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter, I note that you seem unaware of the concepts of proof of concept, reliability testing, and MTBF.
      Argument by analogy is a weak form of argument by the way.
      Incidentally, I have followed the logic train in a number of papers and there are unproven assumptions followed by unproven assumptions followed by unproven assumptions.
      Probability theory is grossly abused.
      Until climate scientists can make precise predictions that are subsequently precisely met, then their work is nothing more than complicated guesses.

      report
    7. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Phil,

      You said that this was your method: "I have read a number of papers and the problem is the conclusions are not supported by the actual results."

      You then assert: " I have followed the logic train in a number of papers and there are unproven assumptions followed by unproven assumptions followed by unproven assumptions."

      I'm just asking you which ones ... any would be OK ... and what you found wrong with them ... the specifics.

      Or are you just making stuff up again? That's an even shakier strategy than analogy incidentally.

      So, give me a few of these flawed papers you've studied and failed.

      report
    8. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Actually, Peter I popped out to Macquarie University's Open Day. Had a chat with a guy working on wave-length modification of high-powered lasers utilising a crystal, inter alia. Carefully steered my children away from the "climate science" tent.

      report
    9. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Any that use extrapolation are inherently risky.
      Physics text chapter 1 Year 11

      report
    10. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Says it all really. Classic denialism desperate to avoid cognitive dissonance.

      Avoid anything that might conlfict with their world view - keep the kids in ignorance to make sure they can never see what an idiot dad is

      report
    11. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "high-powered lasers utilising a crystal"

      I'm glad you made sure it wasn't a CO2 laser before letting your children know about it.

      report
    12. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      It was because I know that when the CAGW bubble bursts, climate science degrees will be worthless.

      report
    13. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Besides this is the university that employs Professor Tim Flannery the well-known mammalogist.

      report
    14. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      You'll have to BUY the book.

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "I know that when the CAGW bubble bursts"

      The mark of denial, absolute certainty.

      report
    16. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Oh I get it. Those papers were in your high school text book.

      No. Still doesn't make sense.

      report
    17. Alan John Emmerson

      Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      One of, perhaps the most important of the skills of an engineer is to persuade people to adopt his solution. The engineer must be able to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the person asking them. In facr he should anticipate the questions and answer them before the are asked. So should it be with any science based public policy.

      In the case of an aeroplane part, the questions I framed are asked at least three times, first by the design engineer's supervisor, then by the airworthiness…

      Read more
    18. Alan John Emmerson

      Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      I mentioned tests for causation
      Causation begins with the recognition of an "association" , a relationship between two events that occur more frequently together than one would expect by chance. Association does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Drawing causal inferences after finding an association requires further judgement . Before declaring that the agent does cause the condition one ought to test whether .
      exposure to the agent invariably precedes the condition
      . the proposition…

      Read more
    19. Alison George

      Tutor

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      No sign of thermal runaway? Whyever would you expect such a thing?

      I'd recommend all three competence levels of this item ....
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming.htm .

      I'd also recommend Ray Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate" or Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming".

      "Show-me questions". "Consolidated answer" The 'consolidated answer' is the consensus conclusions of the climate science community - not just the physicists…

      Read more
    20. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      For an engineer Mr Emmerson seems to have a pretty poor understanding of thermo-dynamics and the difference between heat (what is being retained by the GH effect and increasing amounts of which are adding to the overal heat content of the planet due to increased human burning of geo-sequestered carbon in the form of CO2 in excess of the natural cycles to cope) and temperature (which is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a substance).

      If Mr Emerson claims "there is no sign of…

      Read more
    21. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      So is your resume up-to-date. I often advise students who are changing careers how to take skills learned in one occupation and highlight them for another. Would you appreciate some assistance in this matter?

      report
    22. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      It wasn't a paper in the textbook. It was a principle. It can still be found in some high school textbooks. It still applies.

      report
    23. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      He'd be a great IT teacher I'm guessing...

      report
    24. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      Alan, I enjoy reading your posts. It makes a change from those whose main occupation in life seems to have consisted in learning to join dots.
      At least this ability adds an alternative to those who like to collect pretty rocks (geologists) or think that animals are cute (biologists).

      report
    25. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      "The AGW proponents say that it is becoming, or has become, dynamically unstable to the point .of imminent thermal runaway"

      This is just not true. Climate scientists are not saying thermal runaway is imminent. Thermal runaway requires 100% positive feedback which is not happening or imminent. However, we still expect considerable climate sensitivity with less than 100% feedback. I would hope as an engineer that you understand the difference between less than 100% positive feedback and 100% positive feedback.

      report
    26. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      So Phil,

      You reckon all these really dumb stupid ignerrant climate scientists and all are just sitting down with rulers "extrapolating" lines on graphs? That how do they do it? No wonder clever fellas like yerself sitting at home with the kids can just prove all of 'em wrong, wrong, wrong.

      My goodness.

      It's religious isn't it - coupled with a god given arrogance mixed with a sludge of fabrication. Alchemy 101.

      Really disgraceful.

      report
    27. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter, I don't think that they do it using rulers. That would require some manual dexterity.
      Software packages are all the rage, which can generate instantaneously lines of best fit, and multiple other lines of variance.

      report
    28. Alan John Emmerson

      Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Yes , I do understand the difference between heat, or more correctly enthalpy, and temperature. I also understand the rather more subtle difference between heat and enthalpy.and that is a beginners error to say a body has a certain amount of heat in it.. And yes , I agree that the enthalpy of the atmosphere has more to do with climate thann does the surface temperature.
      Mark Harrigan's explanation or definition of temperature is astray. It involves an objectionable assumption connecting the…

      Read more
    29. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      Thanks Allan - at least in this post you were more disciminating. And I do accept your comment on my overly simplistic explanation of termperature - though it is nevertheless an accepted working definition. My main point is that temperature is a rather poor measure of the actual heat content of a body.

      And it is the amount of heat that is being retained (and the fact that is increasing) that matters.

      The point is, if you do not accept the reality of AGW and it being a problem - why are sea levels rising and artic ice melting and the vast majority of claciers retreating. Once again - it's not pixie dust.

      report
    30. Alan John Emmerson

      Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      My personal views on the matter remain just that. This is a thread about how people reject .certain propositions.
      ..

      report
    31. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      "My statement was that there was no sign of thermal runaway in the historical record"

      No scientist is claiming imminent thermal runaway. Your reiteration of the term borders on the obsessive.

      report
    32. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      As a climate scientist.

      report
    33. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Dr Mark Harrigan, the physicist, stated "Classic denialism desperate to avoid cognitive dissonance."
      I am puzzled. When I was studying physics, I never heard the term cognitive dissonnance mentioned. Did he? In either an undergraduate or postgraduate course.
      What is ironic is that I came across the term cognitive dissonance at Macquarie University when I was studying another degree.
      Macquarie University in fact is facing an increasing marketing problem with Tim Flannery. Rather than adding value, he is seen by many parents on the other side of the Lane Cove river as a loose cannon.
      As an alumnus, I would suggest to the marketing people that he is not adding value to the brand.

      report
    34. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      The poor doctor seems to have forgotten chemistry 101.
      Enthalpy. I wonder whether he can remember stoichiometry.
      What puzzles me is that I have never heard differential equations mentioned in all of these discussions, let alone partial differential equations.

      report
    35. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      See Mark, physicists don't know what "cognitive dissonance" means. So shut-up about it.

      report
    36. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, How can be I be so ignorant. I recall reading the term in Readers Digest a few years ago in a doctor's surgery. So now physicists are expert in it, no doubt.

      report
    37. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      My apologies of course physicists wouldn't have read this article. They are so smart that they never need to go to a doctor, because they already know what's wrong with them, and have devised a new robotically-controlled surgical machine to deal with it.

      report
    38. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      I will give you a hint.
      All of those whose results have occurred in the past, but whose conclusions include the words "may", "might" , "perhaps", "probably", "possibly", "likely" and refer to the future.
      Being a cynic, I also have a difficulty when predictions are made about a date say 2030 which just happens to be beyond the author's expected retirement age.
      This practice has recently passed over onto the Federal Government's education policy, which will take 13 years to implement.

      report
    39. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter, Alchemy was accepted by 97% of scientists as correct for a long period.

      report
    40. Alan John Emmerson

      Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      There are some terminology issues here.. By thermal runaway I meant the type of behaviour illustrated by right hand end of the IPCC's well known graph. . A suddenly occuring rapid monotonic increase in temperature to damaging levels..I freely admit to not being aware that someone had proposed some damping of the rate of change of temperature.

      .

      report
    41. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      What puzzles me is what Mr Dowling, and his fellow deniers, thinks IS causing the increased ocaeanic heat content, the ice masses to melt, the sea levels to rise, winters to warm more than summers, nights to warm more than days and decadal tempeartures to rise? Its a question he never addresses. Indeed non deniers do. They prefer to cheery pick, obfuscate and argue semantics - anything rather than experience the cognitive dissonance associated with accepting the uncomfotable reality that humans are chaning the planet in ways that will make it significantly different from what we have known

      report
    42. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Yes Chris - it's revealing about the paucity of Mr Dowlings ability to argue or discuss this topic that he has to reosrt to these sort of implied ad-homs. That he has the time time to make multiple posts focusing on it - guess it helps him avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with accepting the reality of AGW

      Oh! Damn! used it again!!

      report
    43. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      As a true believer, you must find my agnosticism challenging. However could I just suggest that you pull up some of your beloved papers and try a CTRL + F for the following terms.
      "may", "might" , "perhaps", "probably", "possibly", "likely" and "probability"

      report
    44. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      See Philip this is why i absolutely KNOW you are useless at the business of rational analysis.

      You want to search for a predetermined set of data - but the set you have chosen includes an assumption and a bias. The assumption is that those words have been used in a way that is somehow inappropriate and the bias is that you are searching only for those words rather than seeking to analyse their frequency of use in comparison to others - taking full account of the context in which they occur.

      CTRL + F tells you nothing except that those words occur a certain number of times.

      report
    45. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Agnosticism?

      I know some agnostics Phil. They are not ignorant, self-opinionated or slavish followers of "common-sense". They actually think about stuff deeply, investigate and make up their own minds to the extent they can given the unknowables. They do not pretend to have more knowledge and understanding than they in reality possess.

      Try a different word

      report
    46. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Alan John Emmerson

      "By thermal runaway I meant the type of behaviour illustrated by right hand end of the IPCC's well known graph. . A suddenly occuring rapid monotonic increase in temperature to damaging levels"

      As a chief engineer yourself I expected that technical knowledge was not your forte but I haven't heard of this mis-naming before. With this subject (global warming) there already exists a specific meaning for the term "thermal runaway" which is conceptually identical to its meaning in electronics engineering. I will need to re-read what you've said in the light of your meaning for "thermal runaway". In the meantime, it would help your knowledge if you googled Venus and "thermal runaway" but please, try to avoid blatantly biased articles unless that is what you want.

      report
    47. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      When alchemy was dominant, there was no-one who was a scientist as we understand the term today. Indeed, the dedication of the alchemists to observation and measurement helped produce modern science.

      The early alchemists were wrong about a lot of things, but they were no more wrong than anyone else of the time, and quite often closer to our modern thinking than their contemporaries. Alchemists, as well as having a mystic tradition, had a strong practical component which lead to a correct understanding…

      Read more
    48. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Sorry Ian - no slight intended.

      From memory Newton was a dabbling alchemist and he was pretty sharp. But I think even he would have realised the impossibility of turning this base denialist drivel into gold.

      Just say "No" to syphyllis - a denialist response.

      report
    49. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Newton was more than a dabbler, his output on alchemy may have even surpassed his output on mathematics.

      But you are right, the Master of the Royal Mint (where his alchemical knowledge of the composition and compounding of metals would have been invaluable), knew dissembling when he saw it.

      report
    50. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Grendelus,
      These terms occur within statements. They allow one to identify statements that should be further analysed. In particular, if a should follows a might then there is a major logical slide.

      report
    51. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      At the time Newton was performing his alchemical experiments, Alchemy was on the wane (ironically due to the actions of the self same alchemists) , Robert Boyle had published his "Skeptical Chymist" nearly 5 years before the bulk of Newtons Alchemical work. Of those people of the time that were closest to what we would think of as scientists in the modern form, most of them followed Boyle in rejecting alchemy.

      report
    52. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Then you need to explain, rather than simply assert without substantiation, where the paper is flawed.

      report
    53. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      What a joke, I referred the paper to you. I have read it carefully. I have even quoted it to you.

      You have claimed it is flawed. But you have not pointed out, other than unsusbtaniated assertions, why.

      You are either an idiot or a fraud or quite possibly both

      report
    54. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      There is a fundamental law of logic that in an argument no statement can have more certitude than an earlier one.
      This paper fails that test.
      You might read a paper to see if it sounds reasonable.
      My training in pure mathematics causes me to automatically analyse papers sentence by sentence.
      This habit can be a terrible affliction.

      report
    55. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Patronage was a key element of Alchemy (and what would later become science) at all of it's stages. This is irrelevant to the statement "Alchemy was accepted by 97% of scientists as correct for a long period" which is factually incorrect.

      report
    56. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Patronage was also important for the development of heliocentric theory, anatomy, the discovery of dinosaurs, the development of accurately meauring longitude at sea, in fact all science until the modern era of grant funding.

      The parallels with CAGW are obvious

      report
    57. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      The terrible affliction here is your mendacious slur of an institution, a paper and the science in general

      Phillip Dowling's has now demonstrated his logical inconsistency and mendacity

      Key quotes
      "I choose my words carefully"

      "There is a fundamental law of logic that in an argument no statement can have more certitude than an earlier one"

      When challenged on why he rejects the conclusions of climate science he states
      "I have followed the logic train in a number of papers and there are…

      Read more
  2. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    Hmm, so if I understand correctly, referring to the increasing energy content of the earth in terms of Hiroshima bombs (out of a total of how many Hiroshimas?) is the height of scientific rationality and dispassion, while suggesting that the archaeological record of a punctuated habitation of the Northern tip of Greenland by pre-Inuit people might suggest our reconstruction of Arctic pack ice may be suppressing past variability is an emotional, instinctive and ideological response from my threatened deeply entrenched world view?

    Good to have that sorted out then

    report
    1. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      Yeh I only found out recently that the Vikings were in Greenland for some four hundred years, I had thought it was a couple of decades.

      report
    2. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Cook

      Arrogant academic refusing to answer the question by avoiding it tick!

      report
    3. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Alvin Stone

      The Vikings are not there now tick!

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      And that the world has not been warming as dramatically as some climate models predict a fact that many choose to ignore.

      report
    5. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Alvin Stone

      Well they were pre-Inuit people, the Thule culture and the Dorset culture.

      There is no record of Inuit occupation - they weren't able to penetrate the pack ice.

      There are some references - how good is your Danish?

      report
    6. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Bob Beale

      Well perhaps if you used the Castle/Bravo measure instead of the Hiro it wouldn't look so scary? The Castle/Bravo was around 1200 more powerful than Little Boy.

      Maybe its good journalism but its poor science - and somewhat disrespectful to the victims and survivors of that atrocity. I imagine making a measurement called "The Ausch" would go down like a lead balloon.

      The only interesting thing about the extreme sensitivity that some climate scientists see in minor temperature variations - 300 Kelvins versus 301.5 Kelvin - is yet another indication of the Goldilocks effect. Life on earth seems to be utterly dependent on an almost miraculous steady-state of an enormous ball of nuclear combustion.

      report
    7. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Cook

      Mr Cook

      I see that you are a Climate Communication Fellow.

      Perhaps you can explain to the readers why our Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the climate science she originally backed by her decision to keep Hazelwood Power Station open.

      Surely there is a psychological issue surrounding the backflip. Could it be a 'survival reflex action'? or a "Lingnitius Realitius Moment"

      I look forward to your explanation as to why Prime Minister Gillard has also chosen to ignore the climate science.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    8. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr HendrickX

      Sadly, in your absence, not much has changed on The Conversation. The blighters still don't like the real world entering their environmental dream.

      Still, we must do as we must

      Gerard Dean

      report
    9. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to John Cook

      What you call cherry-picking, I call detailed examination of an assertion.

      Decreasing Arctic pack ice might indeed be a symptom of AGW, but if this event has regularly occurred in the last 2000 years then until we are certain that we understand what was driving the previous cyclical disappearance of pack ice, how can we rule out that the same factors are not driving it now?

      report
    10. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      "Climate Communication Fellow"

      Surreal Gerard, straight out of Monty Python

      report
    11. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      He Mr Williamson

      Guess who joined Mr HendrickX and Mr Coochey and my team today. You guessed it, our Prime Minister.

      Yep. She rejected the climate science when she said, "Let her rip" to the workers at Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria.

      In earlier times, when she believed in climate science, closing dirty coal burning Hazelwood was a promise. Not any more.

      Funny how things change.

      Gerard Dean, and his new mate, Prime Minister Gillard.

      report
    12. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Alvin Stone

      That;s quite funny Alvin. I believe The Australian coped some flack recently for quoting some White Australian elders who thought little of the notions of climate alarm. When its elders in igloos however it seems there are some tall tales some consider worth believing. Smells like conformation bias.

      report
    13. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Still anonymous, who's the troll?

      report
    14. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Re-hashing this again?

      I note your gmail login - how do I know you are the real Marc Hendrickx and not some foul imposter seeking to besmirch his reputation?

      Trolling is a behaviour, not a pseudonym.

      Basically I have a right to manage my online persona in such a way as I see fit, according to the law, and the conditions of any site hosting discussions in which I participate. My pseudonym does not provide anonymity - since it reflects a long and tracable self expression. Neither does you…

      Read more
    15. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Poor Gerard. No longer affable, just snide and sad. You've become John Coochey.

      report
    16. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      so when can we have a real name, or will you continue to live in the closet?

      report
    17. Daryl Deal

      retired

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Oh really?

      Does, your pink fairy fantasy science, explain the reality of the 75% decline in volume of Arctic Sea Ice in the past 1400 years?

      Skeptical Science fact: http://skepticalscience.com/record-arctic-sea-ice-melt-to-levels-unseen-in-millennia.html [oh no, yet another hockey stick, ouch!]

      If, this world of ours is allegedly cooling, as you claim it to be, the inconvenient truth is the simple fact Arctic Ocean floating sea ice should be increasing not decreasing.

      Thus we come to the "The Relativity of Wrong"!

      Reality has a liberal bias.

      cui bono

      report
  3. Linus Bowden

    management consultant

    "The psychological research on which experts we prefer tells us why. Confirmation bias sways us towards those voices that tell us what we want to hear."

    Er, such as the voices of Social Psychology academics?

    report
    1. Linus Bowden

      management consultant

      In reply to Doug Bostrom

      Doug

      Slick maybe, but not superficial. It was a gentle reminder to revise and revise before publishing. Call it cognitive bias, but more than two internal inconsistencies in an academic's work tends to lower the reader's trust for the rest of the argument. Revise, revise, edit, polish, and revise again. A humanities academic signals loud and clear a bias for Ivy League social science academics over 'right-wing/neoliberal/whatever' Catholic non-academics. Who would have guessed?

      While you might not find Journal of Social Psychology publishing too many studies on the matter, there is enough data for an educated person to realise that academic Social Psychology is a hivemind that not even Quadrant and The Australian could conspire to cook up. And a northeastern US Social Psychology department? Come on.

      report
  4. John Coochey

    Mr

    Now let us assume that climate change is happening. A recent published calculation was that Europe was spending $250 billion a year for the whole of this century but this would result in only a one twentieth of a degree inhibition in temperature rise. Is this figure correct and if not what is the correct figure and this surely shows what the cost of making any real difference must be.

    report
    1. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Coochey

      PS what is the psychology of arguing semantics over an issue which cannot be solved?

      report
    2. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Doug Bostrom

      In what way is that nonsense? Someone asked me for documentation which was promptly supplied a brief google will locate many cases. In any case that does not absolve you answering the question under consideration, tick!

      report
    3. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Doug Bostrom

      Mr Valo,

      You know a bit about logical fallicies. Try this one:

      A Prime Minister promises not to introduce a carbon tax if elected.
      After being elected, the Prime Minister introduces a carbon tax.

      The same Prime Minister promises to close Hazelwood Power Station because it burns dirty brown coal.
      The same Prime Minister reneges on her promise to cloase Hazelwood Power station.

      Firstly, is the Prime Minister a logical fallacy.
      Secondly, why does the Prime Minister no longer believe the climate science.

      Madness, sheer madness

      Gerard Dean

      report
    4. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Why is that a red herring Mr Scanlon? '

      Prime Ministers actions go straight to the heart of Mr Cooks contention; "Why do people reject the climate science"

      Are you saying that the Prime Minister agrees with the climate science AND at the same time, want's to keep dirty, brown coal fired Hazelwood going?

      Surely this is an interesting psychological question insofar as our Prime Minister has radically changed her mind by not closing Australia's dirtiest power station.

      I will make it easier for you: "Why does the Prime Minister accept the climate science and then do the opposite?"

      Whatever way you look at it, these questions are bang on topic.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    5. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      "Are you saying that the Prime Minister agrees with the climate science AND at the same time, want's to keep dirty, brown coal fired Hazelwood going?"

      Loaded question.

      "Prime Ministers actions go straight to the heart of Mr Cooks contention; "Why do people reject the climate science""

      Red herring, as this question actually has very little to do with the topic at hand. Julia Gillard has not rejected climate science, just amended the current policy (even though I don't agree with it, it does…

      Read more
    6. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to William Pinskey

      So questioning why our Prime Minister broke her promise to close Australia's dirtiest brown coal fired power plant is a 'Loaded Question"

      Loaded with what?

      So, Julia Gillard has not rejected the climate science, just "amended the current policy"

      Her 180 degree backflip is now an 'Amendment".

      Stop fooling yourself. She has sold you all out, sold the climate scientists down the flooding rivers that would never flood again because it was never going to rain. (According to Flannery)

      And I am glad she has. She has turned her attention to the poor, the battlers, the workers, the industrialists, the business people and entrepeneurs who need stable, reasonably priced electricity to keep this great nation running.

      Why should we shut our power stations when Glorious Green Germany is building 20 new ones.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    7. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Fact is Gerard is that if you repeat something often enough you end up revealing more about yourself than perhaps is wise.

      Time to get some real friends - this obsession of yours cannot be healthy.

      report
    8. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to John Coochey

      "A recent published calculation was that Europe was spending $250 billion a year"

      It's not costing $250 billion a year, there is $250 billion a year in carbon tax or credits. That doesn't mean it costs $250 billion a year. Carbon tax, for example, goes back to the government to reduce tax elsewhere.

      report
  5. Linus Bowden

    management consultant

    "The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points."

    What about when only one opponent is mentioned at all - some unknown 'blogger' from somewhere? Oh, and our Ambassador for the Vatican, of course. As for Tony Abbott, he would still oppose the government, even if Gillard announced that from December, 2012, the federal government will gift to every single…

    Read more
    1. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Cook

      I do not know what you mean by conspiracy but our beloved Bob Brown (remember the guy who advocated a brown coal plant for Tasmania in preference to a renewable hydro on the Gordon) is on record as advocating world government with its seat in Tasmania if my memory serves me correctly.

      report
    2. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to William Pinskey

      Did anyone see that our Prime Minister reversed her decision to close the dirty, brown coal burning Hazelwood power station in Victoria.

      Just how do we explain the mental state of someone who fervently believes in the climate science and spends billions of Australian taxpayers money to support her belief, then suddenly changes her mind and rejects the climate science.

      Perhaps Mr Cook can explain the psychological state of our Prime Minister's sudden rejection of the climate science.

      I look forward to your thoughts

      Gerard Dean

      report
    3. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to William Pinskey

      Well given you are asking for a source you must consider it relevant, it was in a speech he gave after he had announced his resignation but had not yet resigned as I recall.

      report
    4. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      So the non closure of Hazelwood is an argument against climate change? One politician against 97% of the climate scientists.

      report
    5. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Sorry Gerard, but it has already been established that your argument is not valid in the scope of this discussion. 1 shift in policy does not completely invalidate the climate science, not does the action have any bearing on the Prime Minister's belief in the validity of climate science.

      http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

      http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

      I think I saw this one hanging about too

      http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

      report
    6. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to John Coochey

      http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

      You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

      The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

      Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

      report
    7. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to William Pinskey

      You do in fact have the link above. Interesting which tick is it where someone says Monckton is deranged because he claims the Greens want world government but when Brown says the same thing as Leader of the Greens it can be dismissed as just one man's rantings. It is also interesting that people try and dismiss Monkton as a showman but will never get into the ring with him! Too likely to come out looking stupid as Readfearn did at the Brisbane debate and subsequently resigned from the Courier Mail. Once again if Monkton is such a fraud he should be an easy target but no one seems ready for the fight.

      report
    8. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      One Politician against 97% of the climate scientists.

      Who won? The Politician, hands down.

      The politician that promised not to introduce the carbon tax if elected. The same politician broke her promise and introduced the cargon tax. That same politician promised to close the dirtiest brown coal fired power station in Australia. That same politician broke her promise and says let it run.

      The politician, our Prime Minister, has embraced the 3% of climate scientists and the 97% of Australians who want stable, reasonably priced electricity,

      Gerard Dean

      report
    9. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to John Coochey

      John, you sure no one's "been in the ring" with Monckton (First Viscount of Blenchley, whatever that title cost)? Really sure, John?

      When offered a bet in 2009 on world temps over the next 5 years he wisely refused. See, just as Singer knew he was lying to our Congress when he testified for our tobacco companies, and again, when he testified for our oil companies, and again when he testified on climate. Monckton needed the $, just as Singer did. Singer, unfortunately, didn't realize he could…

      Read more
    10. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Thanks Ian. Monckton turned out to be a real woos when he agreed to an email exchange in 2009. When clear (non-IPCC data were presented to him, and a $5k bet offered, he folded.

      He even couldn't grasp why saying CO2 is so small a component of air that going from 280ppm to 380ppm was a real issue. When I asked if he'd move his savings to a bank offering 380/280 more interest, he seemed befuddled. Like a baby, he then sent an email saying he was filtering me out of his!

      A year later he was grubbing $ from Fox News. Maybe he was making more than 380/280?! Or, maybe he discovered the nonlinearity of CO2 effects?
      ;]
      As Pogo Possum once said: "I have seen the enemy and he is us."

      report
    11. Brad Maxwell

      Engineering Student

      In reply to John Coochey

      im curious now, can you explain why a discussion on the concept of a global government would be a bad thing?

      report
    12. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to John Coochey

      Tinfoil hat territory.

      report
    13. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      So next time he visits Australia I can book you in alongside John Quiggin? He did a runner too!

      report
    14. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Brad Maxwell

      It may not be a bad thing if you are an Indian or Chinese but the issue is that it was used to ridicule someone who said the Greens wanted it but is actually what they do want so?

      report
  6. Geoffrey Edwards

    logged in via email @gmail.com

    Dan Kahan offers an interesting view on the polarisation of views on climate change. He looks at in terms of the social costs of having an opinion at odds with your peers.

    If you look at highly contested issues - Immigration, Reproductive rights, Vaccination, Gay marriage et cetera - you can see how this hypothesis might fit with what we often observe.

    QUOTE: "So, if the cost of having a view of climate change that does not conform with the scientific consensus is zero, and the cost of having a view that is at odds with members of one’s cultural community can be high, what is a rational person to do?"

    http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166

    report
    1. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to John Cook

      Well, John, how is your mate, Stephan's survey about the "Denier" mindset going?

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony, so well it seems it's on the verge of being retracted!

      report
    3. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to John Cook

      "robust statistical correlation between the rejection of climate science and conspiracy ideation."

      John, I urge you and Stephan to take your survey's "robust" results into the lion's den and defend them against your old sparring partner:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/10-conspiracy-theorists-makes-a-moon-landing-paper-for-stefan-lewandowsky-part-ii-and-all-40-questions/#comment-1122476

      I'm sure you can clear up any of these false accusations which are being levied against the survey.

      Now, you have linked to this paper to support your claim that the Stratosphere is cooling, which is an essential prediction of AGW:

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016377.shtml

      Could you reconcile that with the findings of this later paper which finds NO Stratospheric cooling for 17 years, since 1995:

      http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf

      !7 years, of course, is what Santer regards as being a minimum definitive period to classify a climate effect.

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to John Cook

      The most outstanding misrepresentation is in the title of Lewandowsky's paper: "NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a hoax". It seems that looking at the actual numbers, of the 10 that agreed that the moon landings were faked 6 would fit the bill for climate alarmists. A fairer titlevwould have read "NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is not a hoax." Was one of those 6 you John?

      report
    5. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Allan perhaps you should look at what the paper was based on: the results of anonymous Internet surveys hosted on alarmist blogs. Do you really think any conclusions based on such results are robust and have any scientific basis?

      report
    6. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to John Cook

      So, add the next 5 years and tell me whether the Stratosphere has continued to cool or whether Randel's conclusion that there has been no cooling since 1995 still holds.

      Don't tell me about Nova, tell her.

      report
    7. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Sou from Bundanga

      Were you one of the alarmist 6 sou?

      report
    8. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      "climate science hate websites" Allan given his misrepresentation of the science are you referring to John cook's SS site? Please do clarify.

      report
    9. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, I believe Anthony is a member of the Climate Skeptics Party, one of more odious climate science denier groups in Australia. Not a lot of point showing them science as they are programmed to ignore facts.

      report
    10. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Still waiting for you to tell us your real name Pauline.

      report
    11. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Hi Allan - thanks. I am aware of Mr Cox's affilitation. He has a track record of completely misunderstanding the basic physics and science he reads. This time is no different. Cheers

      report
    12. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      "Took me less than 10 minutes"; and cost nothing.

      You get what you pay for. You found a cooling TLS trend from 1995, a period of 17 years, using a 17 year moving average.

      Hilarious.

      report
    13. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      "one of more odious climate science denier groups in Australia. Not a lot of point showing them science as they are programmed to ignore facts."

      Charming; but not a lot of facts to ignore with AGW or you Allan.

      report
    14. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Indeed, Hilarious. Everything between a linear trend and up to and includinga 17 year moving average shows a downward trend. Which bit does Mr Cox have trouble understanding?

      Oops, I forgot, It's the lawyer pretending to be a physicist who, on past form, can't tell the different between a net flux and a gross flux, a joule and a watt, how to read an unceratinty measurement in a paper and also, in this instance, couldn't even interpret correctly the time period from the paper he first linked to to support his cherry pciked piece of denialsim.

      So, Which bit does Mr Cox have trouble understanding?

      All of it.

      report
    15. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      You should read your own website Anthony. It spews forth hatred and anti-science rhetoric. 'Odious' is the only polite word I could use here.

      Chalf Bag
      Ditch the Witch
      Juliar

      You guys are a class act.

      report
    16. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, spot on.

      report
    17. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Are you there Mark? What is the linear trend? Does the trend conform to what the models have predicted will be the cooling trend in the Stratsophere?

      report
    18. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I will not cheery pick a subsection of the data and apply an artificial trend line - for the obvious reason that that would be fakery. I have linked to the full data and told you what a trend line that is linear and any number of moving averages show - consistent colling of the upper atmisphere.

      It is hardly surprising that a fake skeptic such as Mr Cox who is secretary of a a anti-science Climate Denial website that spreads lies about the matter (e.g. claiming that Arctic sea ice has increased since 2007) would choose to do a cherry picked trend to support his anti-science BS

      report
    19. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      "I will not cheery pick a subsection of the data and apply an artificial trend line - for the obvious reason that that would be fakery."

      Hilarious. Very cheery indeed. The irony is overwhelming.

      A drop in the moving average line doesn't necessarily indicate a continual drop in temperature during the period of the line - it just means that new data entering the calculation is continually lower than the old data leaving the calculation, which is what you would expect after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption…

      Read more
    20. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      This from the scretary of a group that posts falsehoods on its website - (e.g. claiming that Arctic sea ice has increased since 2007) , who personally canot tell the fdifference between a joule and a watt, a gross or a net flux, cant interprest uncertainties in the published science and claimed that Betz's limit determines a wind trubine capacity factor (It doesn't, it determines the maxiumum amount of energy a trubine can extract from the wind energy - capacity factor is the ratio of the actual…

      Read more
    21. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      deniers gotta deny...nothing to see here...

      report
    22. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Of course Mark, whatever you say. But you do agree, don't you, that the Stratosphere has not had any statistically significant cooling since 1995? That's what the paper said, didn't it Mark?

      report
  7. Marc Hendrickx

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

    On the topic of psychology of accepting or rejecting the science of climate change, of note is the controversy surrounding the methodology and scientific merit of the work of Stephen Lewandowsky (see Online opinion "Fish rot from the head Part 1" for instance-link below).

    Fish rot from the head Part 1: http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/09/06/fish-rot-from-the-head-part-1/

    "Prof Lewandowsky’s paper is certainly motivated, but it is not scientific or competent."

    It seems a retraction will be forthcoming.

    report
    1. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Of course another recent retraction was the study showing Australia was at a historically high temperature based on surrogate data from Tasmania and NZ, it was either withdrawn or put on hold when it was pointed out the mathematical model used would give the same result with random data , does anyone know its exact status at the moment there seems to be some discrepancy on press reports?

      report
    2. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Coochey

      NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION TICK!

      report
    3. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Coochey

      Yes. Good statement John Coochey. Its is interesting given that planet has been cooling since 2001, yet a rise in CO2. In fact the planet has been warming since the mini ice age, and there were no SUVs back then! Tick

      report
    4. In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Comment removed by moderator.

    5. In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Comment removed by moderator.

    6. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      YIppppppppppppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

      Mr HendrickX is back. Where you been Mr HendrickX, Mr Coochey and the others are struggling to hold the line.

      All is well, all is well

      Gerard Dean

      report
    7. In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Comment removed by moderator.

    8. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Mr Williamson again.

      I suggest you stay on topic and try and work out why our Prime Minister no longer accepts the climate science.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    9. In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Comment removed by moderator.

    10. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Gerard, Seems our Allan is a one eyed observer.

      report
    11. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      In the denier land of the blind...

      report
    12. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      And pray tell what am I guilty of denying? seems you're falling pray to one of those logical fallacies there or eyed Al.

      report
    13. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Bob Beale

      Yep, you are right Bob

      Groundhog day when I put that our Prime Minister has, fortunately, backflipped on her promise to close Australia's dirtiest coal burning power plant.

      Groundhog day when all I get back is, "Groundhog Day" or "repetition"

      I guess you are afraid of the facts.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    14. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Mr Dean is not only afraid of facts - he thinks they are Fallacious Arguments Concocted To Slander.

      He is a Talentless Repeater Of Lightweight Lacunae and should be ignored and dismissed.

      On another thread he clained the Germans had increased their emissions - when confronted with the evidence that totally demolished his claim he hadn't the guts to admit his error but slunk back under his bridge

      report
    15. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Doctor Harrigan, I presume,

      did not, did not, did not

      I claimed that Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, the pinup nation for the climate change adherents, had reneged on her nations committments to move to obtain all electricity from renewables by 2050.

      Her decision to build 20 new coal fired power plants shows that economic growth and reasonably priced power have trumped climate change science, just as Prime Minister Gillards decision to keep Hazelwood burning has done.

      I applaud both women for their new found common sense on this matter.

      Still, having said that, it is good to have you in the mix Dr Harrigan. You will be happy to know that our good friend, Mr Hansen is holding court and the big news, Mr HendrickX is 'back in town'

      Till next time

      Gerard Dean

      report
    16. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      The evidence is clear - you claimed the germans could not be trusted and

      "Never, ever believe the German's emissions reporting"

      and

      "The Germans have been SAYING they will reduce fossil fuel usage for nearly 20 years, but in that time, it has risen strongly,"

      when confronted with the evidence that totally refuted this, you went silent

      Misrepresentations and fabrications and unwillingness to acknowledge them is typical behaviour of a Troll Denier

      report
    17. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Now, now Doctor Harrigan

      It is good to see you are following Andrew Bolts example by saving my last comments. Good stuff. Now to business.

      The Germans, long the poster nation of the Greens have created a maelstrom of discontent within green circles by the decision to build 20 new coal fired power stations. Merkel's decision to ignore her previous committments and take advantage of cheap carbon credits and cheap Polish coal has destroyed Germany's environmental credibility.

      Prime Minister Gillard has gobsmacked the poor greens across the face with her back flip on Hazelwood.

      When national leaders make total policy u-turns, it damages their credibility.

      So, never, ever trust the Germans, and now, Prime Minister Gillard to deliver on their heartfelt committments to follow the climate science.

      You must feel devastated.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    18. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, the once affable Gerard's slip is showing - his hatred of Julia Gillard manifests itself, even when he was trying to hide it. He is a milder but still odious variant of the 'ditch the witch' denier grouping.

      report
    19. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Oh dear, the local uber-denier denies that he denies.

      report
    20. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      an uber denier now! from the one eyed observer. LOL

      report
    21. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      You were wrong. You misrepresneted the facts. You cant admit it now. You still haven't the courage to admit it. Cowardly.

      report
    22. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Probably not a coward Mark; just a sad and lonely person desperate for attention in a world passing him by...

      report
    23. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Well, now that you mention it, 'uber' is probably a bit too strong.

      More like a Plimer wannabee.

      But without Plimer's intellect and achievement.

      report
    24. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Praise for Plimer,! Best be careful Allan, The Alarmarati may strike you off their Xmas list, they have done so to others for much less.

      My comment above at the start of this thread merely pointing out that others see significant intellectual mediocrity and lack of scientific rigour in the work of a certain psychologist. The logical fallacy inherent in the results pointed above yet to be challenged. Of course if you are happy with such nonsense passing for science then it reflects poorly on your judgement. I wonder what Plimer with his superior intellect and many achievements would make of such pseudoscience?

      Now still waiting for you to clarify what I am denying, or are you unable to put it into words?

      report
  8. Wade Macdonald

    Technician

    I lost interest at the Hiroshima analogy....

    Linking an instantaneously detrimental catastrophic bomb event and climate change is a long bow not even the archers at agincourt would have bothered releasing publicly.

    Impartiality lost....
    Credibility lost....
    Alarmist warning created.....

    Ho hum...are there no academics who can just leave out the emotives?

    report
    1. Fred Pribac

      logged in via email @internode.on.net

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Despite agreeing with the thesis of this article I have to agree with you on this point!

      The Hiroshima analogy, while quite interesting, was ill-considered precisely because it could in itself be thought of as an emotive troll.

      Apart from that ... this article gets a "like" from me.

      report
    2. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Cook

      There is of course the question of when actual questions are asked. This gave rise of Climategate, Himalayagate, NetherlandsGate . The central issue is those identified as Climate Scientists making statements which are demonstrably untrue. One example is Tim Flannery stating that if all human activity ceased it would take a thousand years for temperature to decline, Andy Pitman when asked the same question said twenty to thirty. When Ian Chubb, the Chief Scientist went on to talk back radio to "defend the science" I asked him who was correct? His answer was quote "I would not have a clue not a clue!" So if he does not who does?

      report
    3. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to John Cook

      Fair enough John,

      Another question if I may ask?

      What are your thoughts on the recent increasing ice formations to Antartica?

      Quote....The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4, 2007) concluded that there had been no net change in Antarctic sea ice extent for the period of reliable satellite records (i.e., since 1979); however, recent results suggest a slight increase in maximum Antarctic sea ice extent.

      report
    4. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Alarmism is great, if you are on the payroll, eh?

      Epic ski season this year and dams are full. Thinks are looking a lot better than predicted a few years back. How's this all working out for Al Gore?

      report
    5. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Cook

      Interesting to see the author of this article feverishly defending and cherry picking his own point of view to cast doubt and ridicule those that ask questions.

      When in doubt, tenure is best.

      Non sequitur, eh, tick!

      report
    6. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Fred Pribac

      Fred,

      Your response made me have a re-read and I agree with you in the main.

      Cheers

      Wade

      report
    7. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Cook

      Cherry picking those slides again, eh, John. Now how about that debate and I promise I will use IPCC panel reviewed research to blow you and your biased claims out of the water. It won't be pretty.

      report
    8. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      My initial post also contained some ridicule Pauline so I guess John and I are even on that front.

      I still don't think he stated anything that is untrue in his response as I did cherry pick a statement with all best intentions of course!

      Wade

      report
    9. Rob Painting

      climate science blogger

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      I'd also point out that summer Antarctic sea ice all but disappears every year, whereas Arctic summer sea ice is only recently approaching that condition.

      report
    10. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Cook

      What if we reverse the question!

      "Why do people accept the climate science?"

      According to the article, they accept the climate science because 97% of scientists say humans are changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. They accept the climate science because it is settled.

      That's settled then, Now for the next question:

      Why do people who accept the climate science, and acknowledge humans should reduce or stop burning fossil fuels, then CHOOSE to click 'Purchase Tickets" on the Jetstar website for their next holiday or conference in Europe?

      They know that flying will burn non-renewable JetA1 fossil fuel. They can choose not to fly. They can choose to stay home. But they dont.

      What is the psychological explanation for this strange human behaviour?

      Over to you, Mr Cook

      Gerard Dean

      report
    11. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Classic cherry picking tick tick!

      report
    12. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      They are in conflict unless you believe that both scientists (sic) believe temperatures will plateau for nine hundred and eighty years before declining and there is still the issue of the Chief Scientist being clueless on a relevant and simple question.

      report
    13. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Cook

      Mr Cook,

      Thanks for responding.

      For the sake of argument, I will accept that I am a "Literal Denier", someone who rejects the scientific consensus that humans are affecting the earth's climate. That gets me out of the way.

      That leaves 'Implicit Deniers' who you describe as people whose behaviour does not align with their beliefs. How do we know who they are?

      I know, we can apply the now famous Gerard Dean JetA1 Fuel Test.

      - According to articles on The Conversation, about 75% of Australians…

      Read more
    14. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Coochey

      Fix bayonets!

      Someone quoted Professor Andy Pitman. I am afraid that you should never, ever trust Professor Pitman's statements on temperatures, until you have checked the facts.

      Why do I say this? On Radio National earlier this year, Professor Pitman mislead the RN audience by claiming Melboune's maximum temperature had reached 48Deg C, when in fact the record is a shade over 46 Deg C.

      When I requested Professor Pitman explain the difference, he admitted that he had used Avalon Airport…

      Read more
    15. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      The old Red Tickers don't like being told they are part of the problem when they click 'Purchase Tickets' on the Jetstar website for their next European holiday.

      Burn that JetA1 fuel baby, then click me read because I don't believe the climate science. The climate science that tells us to stop using fossil fuels. Now, what is JetA1 fuel made of?

      Red Tickers can choose not to fly. Red Tickers can choose to stay home. Red Tickers can choose not to burn JetA1 fossil fuel. But, strangely they don't, they choose to FLY!

      Gerard Dean

      report
    16. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      And if he had quoted a Melbourne city temperature, you would be claiming Urban Heat Island effect.

      report
    17. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Cherry picking

      Black and white

      Tu couque

      Just give up Gerard. You are making yourself look foolish.

      report
    18. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      Globally sea ice is less than 1979 which is the start of the satellite data and John Cook is correct.
      See http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
      However what the warmists do not advertise is that the start of their record is the end of a 30 year decline in temperatures and blind Freddy (but not climate"scientists") would infer that Arctic ice would be at a maximum.
      See http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
      Alarmists don't like to examine arctic…

      Read more
    19. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to John Cook

      Thanks very much John. and, the Vostok core data are excellent, for hundreds of thousands of years back.

      report
    20. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to William Pinskey

      Mr Valo

      I see you are not defending Professor Andy Pitman,

      Good.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    21. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mr Hansen

      To the contrary, if Professor Andy Pitman quoted the Melbourne city temperature record, he would have no argument from me.

      However, as you have mentioned the Urban Heat Island effect, it is fascinating to know that Melbourne's record was set on Black Saturday in 2010, just pipping the previous record set on Black Friday 1939.

      Perhaps the Urban Heat Island effect lifted the 2010 temperature by 0.5 degrees, but that is conjecture.

      What is not conjecture is that we should not trust Professor Pitman's statements on temperature until we have checked the facts.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    22. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to William Pinskey

      So Mr Valo

      It is a logical fallacy to question people's committment to their principles when, on one hand they profess to 'believe the climate science' and on the other, they choose to burn fossil fuel on pleasure flights.

      Somehow, I am not sure there is any fallacy involved. The best description is the word - hypocrite.

      Yes, they are environmental hypocrites.

      Do you choose to fly interstate or overseas Mr Valo?

      Gerard Dean

      report
    23. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Ahhh Mr Hansen

      I think you attribute me with more influence than I have.

      Surely I am not forcing the teachers, the public servants, the farmers, the steelworkers, the retired, the bankers, the analysts, the machinists and all of the other hard working Australians to fly on holidays overseas.

      I have no problem with people using fossil fuels in their work and daily lives, but I do have a problem when people call me a denier, and then they CHOOSE to burn JetA1 fuel to fly to Europe.

      Mr John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow at the University of Queensland has hit they nail on the head when he describes them as "Implicit Deniers"

      Are you an Implicit Denier Mr Hansen?

      Gerard Dean

      Boy, is this comment going to get some Red Ticks.

      report
    24. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      John,
      Freeman Dyson's voice does not need magnifying for anyone who knows anything about science. The Arctic ice data you refer to is a ragtag of incomplete observations tacked on to the satellite record to create some kind of a continuous record claiming an accuracy that is impossible. Of course splicing together dissimilar data is a warmist speciality which is how the infamous hockey-stick was created. I prefer to believe historical eye-witness accounts about early Arctic melting rather than spurious data "digitised" and graphed to give it an air of respectability. However the old garbage-in garbage out axiom applies here as to most climate computer models I have seen using doctored temperature data.

      report
    25. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Well I hope you exclude the forty per cent of some chapters of IPCC which are written by lobby groups such as GreenPeace and the WWF!

      report
    26. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Cook

      Do you academics ever do any work? If I had my way I would make all universities performance based and cut tenure.

      report
    27. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Self-interest is always a great predictor of behaviour. That is why even potential conflicts of interest are recognised as being dangerous in government departments, parliaments, and local councils.
      However those whose careers rely on beating up CAGW claim that they are disinterested.
      The multicultural industry, and the aboriginal industry are being dwarfed in size by the CAGW industry.
      In both former cases, the more problems they can identify the larger the industry becomes. Of course, it would be counter-productive if either of these industries actually solved problems.
      This is true of the CAGW industry as well. However one day when the price of iron ore and coal has sunk to record lows, a federal treasurer will get out a red pen, and the CAGW industry will become miniscule, except for those in the history departments.

      report
    28. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Once again, a strawman. You are the worst type of denier. Completely misrepresenting everybody's argument (not once, but at least 10 times in the same thread). Questioning commitment to principles is not what is on trial here. What is on trial is the repeated and blatant pushing of bunkum information and denying proper research by resorting to the same, tired logical fallacies.

      Another Tu Couque.

      Keep digging buddy. You'll get to the other side eventually.

      report
    29. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Cherry picking again.

      FTR I have no idea who Andy Pitman is, so I will look into that.

      In the meantime, I'm sure you'll have a Plimer/Monckton/Bolt report ready very soon so I'll just preemptively call out on your ad populum fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy.

      report
    30. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to John Coochey

      Actually, the original post by Pauline was cherry picked data, I was counter-pointing this with data that demonstrated she had cherry picked.

      Good try though.

      report
    31. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      You have a supporter Gerard. The "anthropologist" who linked a graph of minimum temps in Reno, Nevada as evidence against AGW.

      No wonder she is impressed by your arguments.

      report
    32. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      I think that's pretty much already happened actually Ms Billingsworth "anthropologist" . You have to kill someone to get tenure nowadays.
      And there is an absurdly Kafkaesque system for evaluating academic merit involving publications, citations and the like ... not too much about actual teaching but.

      Personally I'd be left a bit flat by floggings. I'm more a Leviticus man myself - you don'tjust walk away from a decent public stoning in the Arts Faculty unlike this limp wristed nanny state flogging business.

      report
    33. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Clearly Neil, ice data finds the frozen section of your mind.
      ;]
      Plenty to find anywhere for anyone spouting "ragtag" argumentation like yours. Try doing a little work before vapidly opining.

      report
    34. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to John Cook

      Looks like telling fibs is considered argumentation by some!
      ;]
      If you actually studied the Antarctic data, you's see massive sea ice losses along with warming from 120deg West of 0 longitude straight across toward S. Africa.

      It's apparently hard to fathom for some why precipitation increases don't mean ice increases. Or, maybe it's just an inconvenient fact of reality?

      Again, it always helps to hear who's paying whom.
      ;]

      report
    35. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to John Coochey

      OMG, the Grisly IPCC Straw Man appears again. And now with those profiteering folks at Greenpeace, WWF, etc. Shelter in place mates!
      Oops, that's what Chevron told some of us up here when they blew up a refinery a few weeks back. What did they do with all those tax credits?
      ;]

      report
    36. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Glad to hear you think full dams & skiing is akll you need to 'disprove' global warming, sea rise and ocean acidification in your mind, Pauline.

      Now we all know how shallow is your command of science and its integrity.
      ;]

      report
    37. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Personal attacks instead of informed comment - who is being vapid? Check for yourself as I did where the pre-satellite ice data came from and use common sense to estimate how accurate the occasional ship's sighting of the ice edge would be compared to satellite measurement. I know error bands are regarded as silly by warmists but just try estimating them for these nonsensical figures which clash with real observations. Lack of real data has never been a problem for the global doomsters who can calculate historical global temperatures to decimal precision with only one Southern Hemisphere temperature station. Move over Einstein as the new discipline of Warmist mathematics is born.

      report
    38. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Good to see Neil that you've been able to discredit these Warmist Doomsayers and their fellow travellers.... and all on your own too. Now that's what I'd call a productive retirement.

      Some links please to your sources and evidence, svp..

      report
    39. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Is "warmist" or "doomsayer" a "personal attack", Neil, or is it a scientific term?

      Ditto what Peter says. "Lack of data" seems to be your schtick.
      ;]

      report
    40. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      No Mike. I am actually impressed with your posting and lack of substance.

      Cherry picking... tick!

      Non sequitur... tick!

      report
    41. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Incoherent tick tick

      report
    42. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Check John Cook's reference
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-arctic-sea-ice-melt-to-levels-unseen-in-millennia.html
      Where he refers to a paper on the arctic ice record pre-satellite he is quoting a paper by a couple of true believers where they have attempted to create an ice record from very doubtful data. Incidentally I may not agree with John Cook on much but he puts most of the yobbos on this site to shame with his manners.

      report
    43. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Chris McGrath

      John is responsible for diverting important public funds away from real environmental issues. When the balance sheet is drawn up, I dare say few will be thanking him for diverting our attention away from issues that really matter.

      You Chris are also culpable... done any work for Al Gore recently?

      report
    44. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Tinfoil Hat Marc.

      report
    1. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Toby James

      John told us that: . . . "the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate . . ."

      The problem with that proposition is the satellite record. It relies totally on thermometry. The first explanation for such a conflict of facts - Earth's heat build up while the thermometers show no statistically significant temperature increase - is truly dreadful.

      Atmospheric CO2 seems to have developed the capacity to cause an ametrical energy increase.

      That prospect should keep everyone awake at noght.

      report
    2. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to Toby James

      Toby, John picks cherries for a living. The payroll, gets the results. Ignore the satellite data that says otherwise.

      report
    3. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Toby James

      No, Toby, the oceans are warmer, the lands are warmer, the poles are warmer -- take a trip. Sea rise is about 50% due to thermal expansion, you know, Toby?

      Study what influences earth's energy balance, rather than show you don't think you need to.

      But, for everyone else, there are 4 basic parameters that perfectly predict the past decade of average air temps -- volcanism, oceanic cycles (El Nino, La Nina...), solar activity (sunspots. flares...) and, wait for it, airborne CO2.

      We can go…

      Read more
    4. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      I thought so. Fake sceptic and fake anthropologist.

      report
    5. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to Toby James

      Toby
      You shouldn't be looking at the unfudged satellite data - it doesn't have UHI to give it that proper warming slope.

      report
    6. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Toby James

      Toby,

      I'm not sure what you mean by "ametrical". The only context I've come across this term is in musical notation where it means essentially without a time signature... That what you mean?

      I've had a look at this WSJ graph before actually and it's rather interesting - more than the WSJ initially noticed.

      The two things that jump out ... firstly there seems to be a pronounced upward trend in temp with a bit of a dip following the GFC and reduced global economic activity. And second, that the accuracy of the models' predictions seem to be getting much better over time.

      What do you get from it?

      PS I haven't been able to ascertain the data on which the graph is based so I'm not aralditing myself to the accuracy of it - but it seems a curious reading of the trends that denialists would be waving this graph about.

      report
    7. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Ametrical warming occurs when the warming does not increase the numbers on the thermometer

      report
    8. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Toby James

      Hmmm - warming that doesn't increase the readings of a thermometer? OK

      What about the WSJ graph?

      report
    9. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Toby James

      Toby, data demonstrating warming has been presented many time. I do not believe that anyone could post any link or present any data that you would accept as evidence. Every major science academy on the planet agrees that climate change has been demonstrated and that human activity is the likely cause. Yet, you sit here and ask for more data.

      Given your intransigence in accepting what most scientist agree is occurring, what exactly would you accept as a proof?

      report
    10. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Toby James

      "the satellite record of land and sea surface temperatures, shown here"

      You have cited the lower Stratosphere record.

      "if anyone cares, I'm not anti science."

      I don't care about people who have a problem telling the truth, except to let everyone know that they're not telling the truth.

      report
    11. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris,
      UAH does show minute warming over the period from 1997 but I am surprised that your interest in satellite temperature measurement did not extend to the RSS series which shows minute cooling.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/every
      Either set of readings would show no warming when error bands were applied. I am glad you have brought these graphs to the discussion because they show that for the last 15 years at least there has been no measurable global warming which is a fact that John Cook did not refer to in his article.

      report
    12. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "UAH does show minute warming over the period from 1997"

      So now it goes from no warming to "minute" warming. Nice goal-post-shift there which is a form of special pleading: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

      It's worth pasting the description here and pointing out how it applies to you,Neil:

      "Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent…

      Read more
    13. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      I will no longer debate with you after you claim I "cherry-picked" a trend period which was EXACTLY the period you used .Don't you even read your own posts. Check your own link which I copy below for you in case you don't remember!
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
      Now you should click on it and note the trend period you used.
      The fact that you are criticising yourself for choosing such a trend period shows the rest of your post for the utter verbose claptrap it is!

      report
    14. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      The WSJ graph shows two reasons that prompt people to reject climate science. (1) The first is that the IPCC model projections are contrary to the observed fact. And (2) that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING for 15 years.

      Climate science is an obvious failure. Who, apart from the devotees, would not reject it?

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Toby James

      "The WSJ graph shows two reasons that prompt people to reject climate science."

      I would have thought the WSJ graph has at least one reason for a real physicist to reject the WSJ graph, i.e. it has no probable range. What sort of physics did you do, Toby, that employed someone who doesn't place very much importance on error range or probable range. Doesn't sound like any sort of physics that I'm familiar with. By the way, just in case you're really interested in a graph showing model predictions WITH error bars, you can refer to the IPCC projections cited at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/ .

      Hopefully, as a "retired physicist" who really should know more than you've demonstrated about probable range and error range, you will realize your mistake after seeing that graph and reading about it.

      report
    16. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "I will no longer debate with you after you claim I "cherry-picked" a trend period which was EXACTLY the period you used."

      In case you didn't notice, I was not the one who claimed:

      "The atmosphere seems not to have warmed for 15 years"

      In case what I said was not clear, I'll state it again.

      "Neil also, of course, finds no problem with a blatant cherry-pick of the data" by which I was referring to the 15 year cherry-pick above.

      You had no problem with that cherry-pick. That is a statement of fact.

      report
    17. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "Either set of readings would show no warming when error bands were applied."

      No, the error bands would include no warming in the confidence interval. That's not the same as no warming. Just means there is just over a small % chance of no or negative warming. e.g. 6% chance of no or negative warming does not mean there was no warming.

      "I am glad you have brought these graphs to the discussion because they show that for the last 15 years at least there has been no measurable global warming"

      They don't show that.

      "which is a fact that John Cook did not refer to in his article."

      He already had enough examples of cherry-picking. But I pointed it out as yet another example.

      report
  9. Pauline Billingsworth

    Anthropologist at UOL

    The problem with whole debate is the massive damage the climategate email scandal of East Anglia has caused. To say the science is settled and to make predictions of catastrophic events caused by global change, as we have seen this current prime minister and cohorts make turns people off.

    report
    1. Bob Beale

      Journalist

      In reply to John Cook

      Agreed John, but was it "those who reject the scientific consensus" who committed that crime? I would add that an independent investigation by British police, who had free access to all the information about it (and who cannot be accused - not reasonably, anyway - of having a bent one way or the other on climate ideology) recently concluded that the hacking:
      was not simply illegal but was "sophisticated and carefully orchestrated";
      was foreign-based and perpetrated remotely via the internet; and…

      Read more
    2. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Cook

      That's very interesting. There are prominent scientists who are outraged at those scientists manipulating the data and creating the hockey stick. Science is about facts, not consensus. I think the views of Ian Plimer, John Christie and Richard Linzden should be validated by those who believe in true scientific study.

      Moreover, the following IPCC recognised panel scientists, all oppose the mainstream accuracy of the IPCC climate projections, namely Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the…

      Read more
    3. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to Bob Beale

      Why do you say that? I think it is reasonable to state that the science is not settled and that we do not know. It is okay to ask questions. Not stymie the debate by saying that because there are selective pieces of research to support the United Nations funded IPCC to promote a view that is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody really knows. The scientists do not really know. If they did, they would be betting on their predictions and research.

      report
    4. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Cook

      John, perhaps we could have a public debate and we could review the data that the world has been cooling since 2001. I can see you are trying to push your very emotive point of view. Because people do not support a UN funded IPCC and base their opinions on research, it does not make them heretics. It means they are asking important questions. CO2 is rising yet the world has been cooling. The computer models cannot tell us why.

      report
    5. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Cook

      Mr Cook

      I am somewhat surprised by your comment that the climategate emails were a 'conspiracy'. Whilst I agree that the doubters, including myself, may have inferred more than the emails actually said, they still provided a strong whiff of un-professional scientific behaviour.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    6. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Mr Cook

      A handful of contrarian scientists and non experts have won over our Prime Minister. She has totally reversed her view of climate science by backflipping on her promise to close the dirty brown coal burning Hazelwood Power station.

      What do you say to our Prime Minister who today, has rejected the climate science. She has rejected Tim Flannery and Will Steffen and the IPCC and The Age and the ABC and SBS and you and Professor Chubb.

      Why has she done that? Why has she reversed her decision to close Hazelwood?

      Gerard Dean

      report
    7. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Ah, Mr Scanlon

      Up to form again I see. Sticking to the facts. Perhaps you can tell me why our Prime Minister has rejected the climate science and has backflipped on her promise to close the dirty brown coal fired Hazelwood Power Station.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    8. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Will someone please tell me why Prime Minister Gillard has decided not to close Hazelwood?

      Frankly, I think she has made a wonderful decision, but then I want my computer to boot up in the morning and the fridge to be on, and the traffic lights to work so perhaps I am just being selfish.

      Perhaps selfishness is the psychological driver that pushes us deniers to keep reliable, reasonably priced fossil fuel burning power stations open.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    9. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      The farcical climategate investigations amounted to a friendly warmist chairman asking the so-called climate scientists if they did anything wrong and of course the answer was a resounding no! No credible opposing witnesses were called especially Steve McIntyre who was the mathematician at the centre of the scandal and who terrified the whole inept bunch. I notice Oxburgh the "independent" chairman of one of these inquiries has recently toured Australia touting the global warming scam. Michael Mann…

      Read more
    10. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Neil, due to space limitations, I neglected to mention in my article that the other key characteristic of a conspiracy theorist is that any evidence against the conspiracy theory is perceived as proof of the conspiracy. This characteristic manifests itself in the accusation that all 9 investigations into climategate, by government and universities in USA and UK, are all conspiratorial whitewashes.

      The link you provide supposedly debunking the 97% consensus is talking about a completely different paper to the one I linked to.

      report
    11. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to William Pinskey

      As you can see, Mr Cook refuses to debate me publicly on all of the available climate data and IPCC reports, where I will show Mr Cook how distorted this information is and why he should inject real scientific analysis into his work. Everyone sees that political opportunism and spin has driven the debate (or lack thereof) and the academic flunkies have carried out the handywork. Why now do we have a Prime Minister unfoiling Hazelwood and reducing the floor price in carbon price? Political opportunism. Nothing at all to do about the reality of what is happening in the atmosphere. And you call me a denier. Better a denier than a political puppet!

      report
    12. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      On the contrary, Pauline, I would be delighted to debate you in the scientifically appropriate forum which is the peer-reviewed literature. Please, compile your evidence-based analysis in a paper and submit it to a journal. There are literally thousands of journals that publish climate related papers so what are you waiting for?

      report
    13. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to John Cook

      Set out the agenda John. Don't mind if I bring with me Jo Nova and Professor John Cristie. We look forward to it.

      report
    14. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to John Cook

      John, You're using the label "conspiracy theory". I would have said that the emails contained evidence of at least unscientific attitudes and more probably unethical approaches.
      Remember Dr William McBride. While his work on thalidomide was excellent, his later work was flawed.
      Incidentally in your psychological studies did you come across the role and function of the political commissar in the USSR, especially in the Red Army?

      report
    15. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Neil, the fact one of the investigations was commissioned by Sen. James Inhofe makes your claims LOOK like total rubbish. But hey, Im with you, it IS all a big conspiracy and further I think the Senator was secretly trained by Eddie Chapman before he died (probably murdered by a high level German operative poisoning him with a customised untraceable isotope) in a non discript farm shed in a quiet cornfield of Oklahoma in the ancient art of the double bluff. Then Inhofe, as a carefully placed double…

      Read more
    16. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to John Cook

      John, This model that CAGW proponents so love has many examples of failure in the past.
      Your glib comment about rhetoric being sufficient for success in public debates ignores much social psychological research. How embarrassing.

      report
    17. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      So let's bring science down to a debate and the loudest applause wins the day. I wouldn't use a tool designed like that. It may have have a nice colour but..........

      report
    18. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      You did not comment on the lack of credible witnesses or the choice of Oxburgh for the inquiry. It was like a debate with everyone including the adjudicator on the "for"side with an unsurprising result.

      report
    19. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Actually, Pauline, your words evidence that raising climate change is the whistle that brings your nastiness and uninformed arguments forth!

      And I always respected Anthropologists as careful students of science and humanity.

      Aw, I still will.

      report
    20. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Actually, Pauline, what you make us see is that you have no scientific argumentation, just naive bias. Who knows why? One might expect an Anthropologist to be concerned with humanity's history, capacity for reason, and future success.

      Your words clearly don't evidence understanding of the real physical alterations made by us all to our world, so why would one listen to your opinions and empty challenges?

      report
    21. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Jo (Nova) Codling???? The woman who reckons the data shows warming because it is monitoring jet exhausts at airports? http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

      John Christie "inventor" of the Lutec 100 perpetual motion machine? http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec.htm

      Or do you mean John Christie the serial killer?

      I'd be dragging out some bigger guns than that pair Pauline - perhaps a geologist or mining engineer - they have great talent when it comes to understanding upper atmosphere radiation issues apparently - the retired ones anyway.

      Incidentally where are they... they've usually turned up by now?

      report
    22. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex, 'sheeple' is 911 truther speak.

      Highly doubtful this one is an anthropologist and even more doubtful it is a "Pauline'.

      report
    23. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Late-middle aged, disenfranchised male, poorly educated and afraid of the future pretending to be a female anthropologist...TICK

      report
    24. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Jo Nova...HAHAHAHA!

      Next they'll be quoting the Loopy Lord.

      report
    25. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Chicken noises from the fake Pauline. Too easy.

      report
    26. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Fake Pauline says:

      "Do you want to have that debate John Cook, and let me dissect everyone of your claims and arguments?"

      Now when challenged she bravely runs away! C'mon fake Pauline, John called your bluff, why not call the meeting and debate John? By yourself. Tough guy...

      report
    27. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Cook

      "I used Mike's trick to hide the decline" i,e, when actual data did not match surrogate data substitute the actual data. If tree ring data does not match the temperature record when we have both must be a pretty good indicator that it is unreliable when we do not have temperature records. "We must remove the mediaeval warm period would also defy scientific credibility

      report
    28. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Cook

      And your point is? I found that response inchoherent.

      report
    29. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Lord Gore?

      report
  10. Mark Poynter

    Forester

    The phenomena of rejecting science in the face of strong evidence has been around for a long time and has been prevalent with regards to virtually any environmental issue - so it is not restricted to the issue of climate change.

    In fact, the greatest proponents of rejecting science has been the environmental movement. For example, they are still strongly campaigning to 'save' Australian forests from logging when there is a myriad of readily available factual information provided by the Federal…

    Read more
    1. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Mark Poynter

      I agree. Green groups, politicians, economists, lobby groups, etc, are notoriously anti-science, except when it agrees with them.

      report
  11. Gary Murphy

    Independent Thinker

    It's all political. Abbott decided to use it as a political football and then the Austraylian and the right-wing shock jocks jumped on board. And the rusted on Liberal supporters can't bring themselves to admit that Abbott is so contemptible as to abuse such an important issue solely to further his own career so they jump on board as well.

    report
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Gary Murphy

      Mr Murphy,

      I agree that Mr Abbot is "abusing the important issue solely to further his own career", however there is someone else doing the same - our Prime Minister Ms Gillard.

      Yesterday, Ms Gillard reneged on her promise to close the dirty, brown coal fired Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria.

      Evidently, rising power prices and energy security trumped the climate science.

      Why don't you ask her why she no longer believes in climate science.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Hello Mr Hansen

      Are you honestly saying that Prime Minister Gillard's decision to ignore the dire warnings of the climate science community when she decided to keep Australia's dirtiest coal burning power station running is not relevant to this article!

      We have situation where a nation's leader has professed complete trust in the settle science and has spent billions of taxpayers funds on schemes to support this belief.

      Then, only a few weeks after introducing Australia's greatest environmental…

      Read more
    3. Jason Birch

      Managing Director

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard Dean,

      The non sequitur is the suggestion that because the government decided not to buy Hazelwood it means they no longer believe in climate science.

      What it actually means is that they have decided they can get better bang for the taxpayer's dollar elsewhere.

      Hazelwood produces a certain amount of CO2. Decommissioning it would therefore avoid the generation of that amount of CO2. Given the cost of buying it and decommissioning it, we can therefore work out a cost per tonne of CO2…

      Read more
    1. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      One notes that there is no comment in that ad hom attack on the inadequacies of the flawed Lewandowsky paper, which is the basis for much that John Cook has written above. Then again Mr Cook and his Alarmarati fan club do seem to ignore failings in the work he agrees with. This is a symptom of confirmation bias.

      The most outstanding misrepresentation is in the title of Lewandowsky's paper: "NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a hoax". It seems that looking at the actual numbers in the survey, of the 10 that agreed that the moon landings were faked. 6 would fit the bill for climate alarmists.

      A fairer title might have read "More climate alarmist think the Moon landings were faked: therefore we are all going to fry"

      Allan as a member of the Alarmarati, please do clarify what I am guilty of denying. I am still waiting your response.

      report
    2. Sheri Kimbrough

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Scientists often get paid by grants and by universities. Do you really think if the government says there is climate change they are going to give money to a scientist who says there is not? Who pays to have their ideas proven wrong? It's interesting that scientists in climate change are so pure, but when one talks about the oil industry, or pharmaceutical industry, there is always the question of "Who paid for the study?". Universities are not islands unto themselves. If we ask in oil and other studies, then we need the same money trail in climate science. Who benefits most from the conclusions? If tomorrow there was a definitive study showing that climate change is completely wrong, do you really think a science community who for 30 years has screamed "We are all going to die if we don't stop using fossil fuels" is going to cheerfully trot out the study? Not on this planet.....

      report
    3. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      Sheri,

      Had a bit of a look at your profile and interests and would like to make the following comment.

      Like you I have serious doubts and criticisms of horizontal axis wind turbines. But that does not lead me to reject the science that points to global warming and the need to limit and reduce our dependence on burning stuff.

      I spend a lot of my time trying to get wind turbine proponents to reconsider their approach, reconsidering their designs and acknowledging the consequences of the technology…

      Read more
    4. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Daryl Deal

      Another example of rigorous debate from a member of Alarmarama!

      report
    5. Sheri Kimbrough

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      I don't think I will ever see 400 ft spinning towers dotting mountains and plains as "preserving nature", but who knows? You miss my major objection to wind turbines, that of intermittency. As noted in the first sentence, I also am very concerned with the land foot print. How much land do we destroy in the name of saving the planet? Vertical turbines may eventually be practical, but try as I might, and I do try, I cannot see a future for a source of fuel that is available only when the wind blows…

      Read more
    6. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      Yes I agree re the 400foot spinning towers - have a google on vertical axis/ magnetic levitation systems ... can be quite pretty actually - but again not all over the landscape like its just waste ground.... offshore, on platforms, where there's some decent wind.

      And yes you're right, at best wind can only be a supplementary energy supply - part of a range of strategies from biogas, solar PV, solar thermal, tidal, geothermal and more.

      My main concerns with nuclear aren't technical so much as…

      Read more
    7. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      "Do you really think if the government says there is climate change they are going to give money to a scientist who says there is not?"

      In short - YES. But here's the catch - They would have to demonstrate their stance with rigorous science.

      I'm still searching for a serious rebuttal by climate sceptics. Look at any thread on a sceptics website and see them accept ANY theory - no matter how wild or kooky. ANYTHING except CO2 - it will be accepted. This is not scepticism, it's wishful thinking.

      report
    8. Sheri Kimbrough

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      I have looked at the vertical turbines and they are interesting. My point with turbines is they work like a person who owns a bicycle and takes it to work, but has to leave his car idling all the time in care it rains, or hails, or snows. The turbines require constant backup, even if the plant can ramp up and down (notice, it's ramp up and down, not shut down while the turbines take over). Turbines require we build plants to back up the turbines. So we create two energy sources and significantly…

      Read more
    9. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      Sheri,

      'My point with turbines is they work like a person who owns a bicycle and takes it to work, but has to leave his car idling all the time in care it rains, or hails, or snows. '

      Why not wear a raincoat?

      report
    10. Sheri Kimbrough

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      I was unaware than raincoats provided protection from snow and hail.

      report
    11. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      In the article mentioned above, John Cook skewers our resident deniers beautifully:

      "Now you might think, with prior warning, that those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change would seek to make a liar out of me and thwart my predictions. However, my expectation was they wouldn't be able to help themselves. Ideologically driven science rejection is a knee-jerk, instinctive reaction. How did my prediction pan out? Let's go through the list:"

      We really do a better class of denier here. Ours are so boringly predictable...

      report
    12. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      They do. And by your logic people never rode bikes in bad weather before cars were invented.

      report
    13. Sheri Kimbrough

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      Another person who just wants to argue semantics and make wild leaps in so-called logic. If I said that using renewables would lead to living in the woods and eating berries while freezing, I suppose you would point out that people did that too. End of discussion. You waste my time.

      report
    14. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrickx is welcome to debate the points in my post - so far he has been too afraid - content to only offer snide personal attacks -typical of the calibre of his ability to deal with the science

      report
    15. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Another member of Cook's Alarmarama.
      Mate, been there done that, won that contest countless times over. Your posts with their car metaphors threaten to bore me to death.

      report
    16. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrickx by this post demonstrates not only that he too afraid to debate the evidence and the substance but that, as is typical, the best he can manage is abusive rhetoric.

      The post is on this thread. It contains no car metaphors - just presentation of the evidence and the science with links to the papers and the data.

      No one has managed to overturn a single item of it, let alone the collective weight of the evidence. Debiers simply cannot and are too afraid to enage with the data and the evidence

      report
    17. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, I didn't bother with your nonsense having refuted it so often. My time is valuable. Give me the elevator version and I'll provide some constructive feedback for you.

      report
    18. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      and that answer? struggling to put it into words are we.

      report
    19. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, I was just reading some of the sad and somewhat pathetic contributions made by Marc in previous topics.

      Don't expect a reasoned response any time soon. As I said, we really need a few 'A-grade' deniers here as the current crop can't even muster a half-decent argument.

      report
    20. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Laughable and intellectually facile and cowardly response from a serial denier who has plenty of time to make multiple personal attack posts on this thread but hasn't the werewithal to engage with the evidence.

      This from a man who publicly says"The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism"

      What a hypocrite

      report
    21. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      And your response to my points about Lewandowsky's rubbish paper? What's that wailing in the background? That's not a hypogriff is it?

      Mate, time you stopped running yourself in circles. How many words and electrons have you wasted here, and elsewhere. I get it . You think we are in the midst of a level 5 planetary emergency, I disagree, banish me for having an alternate opinion and call me names, The problems and opportunities we face in the future due to the changes we are making are on a par with previous challenges we have overcome.

      Time you opened your eyes. Again if you come up with something new let me know, else it's a Ciao from me my fine feathered friend.

      report
    22. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      still waiting....

      report
    23. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrickx - who claims to be a scientist and to espouse "diligent reporting of facts and testing of theories" denies the reality of AGW. I have presented multiple lines of data, evidence and peer reveiwed literature that clearly establishes he is in error.

      He claims to have refuted these before but is unable to point to where or when - instead acking for a dumbed down "elevator pitch" - In other words his intellect requires a readers digest version of the science - presumably so it is simple enough for his limited intellect to grasp.

      He is incapable of debating the evidence in relation to AGW and simply cannot to admit to it

      report
    24. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, but hate to burst your alarmist bubble. I don't deny the reality of AGW I merely suggest that the available evidence, which I have presented here again and again, indicates that some (that's you and people like John Cook and other members of the Alarmarama band wagon) have grossly exaggerated its extent and future impact. The future will prove who is right and who is wrong.

      By the way it must have hurt to have been ignored so much that you come begging to me for some comment on your pot holed ideas.

      Ciao now brown cow.

      report
    25. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      With apologies to Monthy Python:

      Brave Sir Marc ran away.

      Bravely ran away away.

      When science reared it's ugly head,
      He bravely turned his tail and fled.

      Yes, brave Sir Marc turned about

      And gallantly he chickened out.

      ****Bravely**** taking to his feet,
      He beat a very brave retreat.

      Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Marc!

      report
    26. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      the irony thick as the brick between Allan's ears

      report
    27. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Several points Mr Hendrickx - all of which reveal your denialism

      1) You may not attempt to deny AGW but you have never posted refutinf those who do - despite the fact you espouse "The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism". Why not?

      2) Your argument amounts to an assertion (because you have not…

      Read more
    28. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Your point number 1 paints as you as someone who has no regard to the facts. I happily live by my credo. Pity that you don't follow such high standards. Your silence on the very poor standards of Lewandowsky's and Cook's work paints you as a hypocrite and sycophant.

      In regard to climate sensitivity. I am happy to keep an open mind on this. You seem to have made yours up with the scientific work no where near completed. The high range scenarios are well and truly debunked. This all suggests the…

      Read more
    29. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      How does "branching out to other websites" make the acceptance of kooky theories on "sceptic" websites look any less kooky?

      report
    30. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      When you make unsupported claims in relation to the science, indulge in constant personal smears, misprepresent the evidence and the published literature and then refuse to actually rationally debate despite claiming to espuse the opposite - it is hardly surprising that your approach invites ridicule and incredulous amusement

      report
    31. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I am not qualified to comment on Prof Lewandowsky's work as I am a physicist, not a psychologist.

      I am commenting on AGW, on which I do have some expertise.

      On climate sensitivity if you can point to a body of work (a single isolated paper by a contrarian in a back woods pay to publish journal doesn;t count) that establihes that climate senstivity is low I would be pleased to see it. The current concensus and body of work says otherwise but I also am open minded. It would be good news.

      In regard to 3 - your comments abourt risk management are uttter rubbish. The "wait and see" approach to risk management is NOT appropriate if there is a reasonable possibility that the impacts of the risk are beyonds one's ability to cope. In fact prudent risk management says exactly the opposite. It's why we take out insurance even for unilkely events. It would appear, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr Hendrickx

      report
    32. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I'm sorry was that a confession on your part?

      report
    33. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Ooh! I am undone by your miraculous twit.

      Who was it that was refusing to debate again? Oh yes - you :)

      Brave, Brave Sir Marc

      report
    34. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Well it's obvious we disagree on what constitutes a "reasonable possibility". In regard to climate sensitivity papers-we have been there before and it's clear that you will reject anything that does not match your ideologically biased view, all you need to do is open your eyes to the current evidence staring you in the face that I have cited numerous times.

      Just as well for all of us that you have no demonstrated capacity to influence the policy direction. On that matter no one else here does either.

      Chow for now, you old worry wart.

      report
    35. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      "You seem to have made yours up with the scientific work no where near completed."

      This is the Homer Simpson excuse, i.e. risk taking. Because there is (supposedly) some small chance that everything will be fine we should just carry on as if everything WILL be fine.

      "You seem to have made yours"

      Oh the irony. As if someone who assumes everything will be fine has not already made up his mind.

      "This all suggests the basis of your position is based on ideology"

      The irony.

      "the developing scientific work currently in progress"

      Promises, promises.

      "You have made your mind up and nothing will convince you otherwise."

      The irony.

      "you obviously have little applied experience in risk management "

      You just couldn't make this up.

      report
    36. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris O'Neill the "optusnet climate scientist" ROTFL. The irony very thick with this lot.

      Ciao brown cow to you to.

      report
    37. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You say that you are a professional competent physicist.
      If I generously assume that for the purposes of the exercise, could you please explain how that suddenly makes you an expert in risk analysis and insurance.
      Curiously both accountants and actuaries might consider that you are suffering from an excess of professional hubris.
      By the way,did you take out insurance with either HIH and FIA ?

      report
    38. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Well, cross your legs.

      report
    39. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "could you please explain how that suddenly makes you an expert in risk analysis and insurance."

      Strawman. His point does not rely on him being an expert in risk analysis and insurance.

      report
    40. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      "Chris O'Neill the "optusnet climate scientist" ROTFL."

      Yes, just like Dermod O'Reilly the hotmail Climate scientist. Only difference is, he's pretending it's not a joke. I didn't notice your ROTFL for him. That couldn't possibly be because you're biassed, could it? No, not one iota of bias in Hendrickx.

      Ciao Homer.

      report
    41. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, You and others claim that people not expert in climate science must slavishly follow those that claim to be - no matter how spurious their credentials - yet you suddenly now claim that climate scientists have an expertise outside their field.
      You claim that I used a strawman argument when I responded to this.
      In regard to 3 - your comments abourt risk management are uttter rubbish. The "wait and see" approach to risk management is NOT appropriate if there is a reasonable possibility that…

      Read more
    42. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      In terms of risk assessment, project management protocols dictate that ALL risks be identified, and assessed.
      Climate change scientists only identify one.

      report
    43. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Perhaps Mr Dowling you should read this paper

      http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/publications/papersPDFs/86_SmithStern_Uncertainty_2011.pdf
      “Scientific understanding of the mechanisms of the climate system and their likely responses reinforces the view that the risks are significant and that a delay in action can be very costly” (P16) and
      “The case against action has to successfully argue that the risks are small not merely that the outcomes are uncertain” (p18)
      and also consider this information

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Action_vs_Inaction_500.jpg

      Before making absolute statements about climate change as it were analgous to project management methodologies (where I am willing to be you have never managed an R&D project where identification of ALL risks and quantification of same is impossible - in the real world uncertainties abound)

      report
    44. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Jeez, I just had a look at your ABC Hate site - you really are one obsessed little critter aren't you?

      If you've forgotten about your climate denial posts, I'll give you a hint - look at WUWT, they keep all your loony rantings. And have a look at previous posts here. Only an uber-denier would deny like you do.

      Definition of lukewarmer: coward.

      At least John Coochey doesn't hedge his bets on his craziness - you just haven't got the guts to truly say what you think - you know the science is sound but your feeble little mind cant quite accept the truth. You try to dress up your fear in half truths and smears.. Your science is shallow, approaching non-existent. Being a McIntyre acolyte, you have learned the lingo but not the science.

      And again, who do you work for?

      report
    45. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      easy when you don't have any balls (which is the definition of a lukewarmer)

      report
    46. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Have you seen his ABC hate site Mark? This guy is one obsessed right wing goon.

      report
    47. Sheri Kimbrough

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      It really isn't possible for a climate scientist to not call names, is it? Why is the behaviour of a "scientist" just like that of a 4 year old caught lying? Do you not have any data to support your Ideas??? Ah, that would it be it. The tiny wizard of Oz caught behind the curtain, pretending to be something other than what he is. So sad.....

      report
    48. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Can he read?

      report
    49. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, forget Marc. He's not very good at the climate denier thing.

      We need some better deniers here. The current crop are flabby.

      report
    50. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Interesting - he hasn't got time to debate the science but does have time to run a blog site full of vitriol and criticism for the ABC.

      Says a lot. He has no credibility in the science at all.

      He is on record as saying "avoid activism".

      He demonstrates his hypocisy in public.

      report
    51. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      The more cogent question is, will he?

      So far Mr Dowling is on record as saying he deliberately avoids any information that might impact his world view. Cognitive Dissonance you know? ;)

      report
    52. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      I repeat my invitation to debate the data and evidence in my post challenging any and all those who deny the reality of AGW to do so.

      So far none has been willing or able. Care to have a try Sheri? :)

      Show us your ability to "wile away the hours" and that your head is not just "full of stuffin"

      Why not unravel the riddle of AGW for all us poor individ'le's in trouble and and in pain, and show us where we're wrong?

      We're not in Kansas anymore Sheri

      report
    53. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Gee Allan what a rant that is. An alarmist through and through, how do you get out of bed in the morning?

      report
    54. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      From interested observer to nut job.

      report
    55. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      A true DK moment.

      report
    56. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      By the way thanks for the plug....

      http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/

      "In a diversifying media landscape news editors face an increasingly difficult challenge reviewing the work of reporters under their supervision. Inevitably some mistakes, errors and substandard articles slip past their critical eyes.

      The simple aim of ABC NEWS WATCH is to publicise the errors, omissions, and substandard reports produced by the News service and related entities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In doing so we hope to provide an independent check or audit on ABC news articles and in doing so improve the standard of ABC news reporting. After all its our ABC."

      There are plenty of examples of ABC's sub standard climate coverage there, but for a summary try this article in The Australian for the elevator version. Enjoy!

      Aunty is mistaken but not malicious

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/aunty-is-mistaken-but-not-malicious/story-e6frg6zo-1225921441996

      report
    57. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      That site again...
      http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/

      It's purpose...

      In a diversifying media landscape news editors face an increasingly difficult challenge reviewing the work of reporters under their supervision. Inevitably some mistakes, errors and substandard articles slip past their critical eyes.

      The simple aim of ABC NEWS WATCH is to publicise the errors, omissions, and substandard reports produced by the News service and related entities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In doing so we hope to provide an independent check or audit on ABC news articles and in doing so improve the standard of ABC news reporting. After all its our ABC.

      report
    58. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "Chris, You and others claim"

      I feel another strawman coming on.

      "that people not expert in climate science must slavishly follow those that claim to be - no matter how spurious their credentials"

      Yep, strawman. Where did I say that?

      "yet you suddenly now claim that climate scientists have an expertise outside their field."

      Oh. You've outdone yourself this time. A double strawman.

      "In regard to 3 - your comments abourt risk management are uttter rubbish. The "wait and see" approach to risk management is NOT appropriate if there is a reasonable possibility that the impacts of the risk are beyonds one's ability to cope. In fact prudent risk management says exactly the opposite. It's why we take out insurance even for unilkely events. It would appear, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr Hendrickx"

      I agree with you. Any other queries you should probably direct to the first person to use those words, Mark Harrigan.

      report
    59. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      By the way, have you figured out yet who is calling himself a Climate Scientist as a joke and who is calling himself that but not as a joke? I know it's a challenge for you but if you think about that and nothing else then you just might have the capacity.

      report
    60. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Hi Chris - to the denier trolls they not only have to construct straw men - they need to confuse who they are responding to. I appreciate your posts confrtonting these folk too.

      BTW to Phillip - read the paper I linked to that makes this point.

      "Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy"
      http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/publications/papersPDFs/86_SmithStern_Uncertainty_2011.pdf
      “Scientific understanding of the mechanisms of the climate system and their likely responses reinforces the view that the risks are significant and that a delay in action can be very costly” (P16) and
      “The case against action has to successfully argue that the risks are small not merely that the outcomes are uncertain” (p18)

      you might learn something - though on past form I very muc doubt it.

      report
    61. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, I note that you referred to a paper from the famous London School of Economics. It certainly is in the news from time to time, as are some of its graduates.

      report
    62. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark I also avoid films about gluttony, bestiality, torture, explicit violence and sado-masochism.
      Incidentally, you repeat your error in claiming to understand what constitutes evidence of cognitive dissonance. This is understandable as most followers of pop psychology know a few terms and a vague idea of the concept and then go wildly applying it to situations where it doesn't apply.

      report
    63. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      So Philip, rather than read evidence that might inform you, you choose to defame an institution and its alumni...

      Don't you work in education? Is it accepted practice to slag off at other institution where you work? I doubt that it is and thus we have further confirmation that you view the universe with unskeptical eyes because you do not actually consider the evidence presented to you before coming to a conclusion.

      report
    64. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Sheri Kimbrough

      "a climate scientist"

      It's a joke Joyce, or whatever your name is.

      report
    65. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "In terms of risk assessment, project management protocols dictate that ALL risks be identified, and assessed."

      So where does it say one of the risks can be ignored?

      report
    66. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "Climate change scientists only identify one."

      Which Climate scientist is saying other risks should be ignored?

      report
    67. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      What a joke. Mr Hendrickx is "too busy" to debate the actual evidence in relation to climate science. Now we know why. Because he is obsessed with providing a (ahem) "Public Service" keeping the ABC to account. Not any other media outlet mind you. Not the Australian who runs smear campaigns, backed by the Murdoch phone tappers - no, they don;t deserve scrutiny - but the ABC.

      Yet, he claims to be scientist whose role is to "diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism.

      Mr Hendrickx's mentality, mendacity aand hypocrisy are in plain view.

      What's wrong Marc? throwing a tantrum because the ABC drum rejected one of your, ahem "articles"

      report
    68. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark inhabits that realm somewhere over the rainbow. Just click your ruby slippers mate and you'll be right.

      report
    69. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Was that meant to be a logical reply from Mr Dowling?

      You made an unsubstatiated claim in relation to risk management and climate science. I pointed you to a paper from a prestigious instiution and published by the royal society that debunked your claim.

      you now come back with an irrelevant statement about dsitateful movie genres you don't like, make an unfounded criticism about my understanding of a term, haven't read the paper or addressed the argument.

      And you think that is a rebuttal…

      Read more
    70. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrickx is too busy to debate the evidence but not too busy to make personal snide attacks.

      What's wrong Marc - tied up with your anti ABC activism? Even though you espouse avoiding such activities?

      Telling that ot a single denialist troll on this thread is capable of addressing the evidence.

      report
    71. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      There ain't nothing better than see The Conversation heavyweights, Doc Harrigan and M Hendrickx sluggin' it out on Sunday night.

      Keep swinging Gentlemen.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    72. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, I read the paper you referred to. Many of the ideas I agree with.
      However I do have a problem with the notion of subjective probability.
      I also found his diagram to be extremely simplistic, as well as the associated linear mechanisms.
      I find the reference to Bayes' Theorem as a classic case of attempting to use mathematics in an in appropriate situation.
      As with many climate science papers, the conclusions are much stronger than the argument in the body of the paper would support.
      Difficulties in dealing with uncertainty are not best dealt with best guesses.

      report
    73. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Grendelus, You chose to claim that I defame institutions and their alumni.
      I invite Saif Gaddafi to sue me if he feels that I have defamed him.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/nov/30/gaddafi-donation-lse-bribes-inquiry
      http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2011/02/libya_funding.aspx
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/verdict-on-gaddafi-exposes-roles-of-blair-lse-and-oxford-6270240.html
      But Grendelus I admire your courage in defending Saif Gaddafi, with whom no doubt you share many values.

      report
    74. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, Climate change is but one risk that many concentrate on. Thermonuclear war is another. Pandemics are yet another. Bad governance is another. Reckless economic management a la Greece is another. etc. etc. etc.

      report
    75. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      They don't say other risks should be ignored. They simply ignore them.

      report
    76. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      This reply suggest you have a complete failure of understanding of bayesian Statistics

      Bayesian inference is a method of inference in which Bayes' rule is used to update the probability estimate for a hypothesis as additional evidence is learned. It starts with a best guess and then adjusts. Which bit did you have trouble understanding (apart, apparently) from all of it?

      report
    77. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I would merely ask readers to Google London School of Economics and Saif Gaddafi and ask them to decide whether Mark should have used the term notorious institution rather than prestigious institution.
      Incidentally Mark do you currently own a pleasant house?

      report
    78. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark,
      I am perfectly well-acquainted with Baye's Rule.
      It is only true under certain stringent conditions. Would you like me to explain these to you?

      report
    79. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Grendelus, let me assure you that I am not gloating over such a "gotcha" moment.
      It's just not my style.

      report
    80. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      For you that was a 'gotcha' moment. Because you are content to judge a university by the misdeeds of one of its students? Do you realize how asinine that is?

      Seriously Philip, that is like people assuming all Macquarie University graduates are criminals because Rodney Adler is an alumni of that excellent school.

      report
    81. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Again - you reject an entire institution because one of its graduates is a very bad guy?

      I guess you'd better ditch Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Padua - well and any other institution of note. I reckon bad apples have been through every single one.

      report
    82. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Mr Dowling - you are free to demonstrate your self-proclaimed erudition with respect to Bayes Rule at any time. Thought it would be off topic I am always open to learning new things and always value curiosity over certainty (something you might care to embrace?).

      It would improve my confidence in your ability to do it if you could spell it properly though.

      I would prefer, however, that you address the main comment I have made to you, and others, and which is the topic of this article.

      Please…

      Read more
    83. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      So hypogriff Harrigan true to form is happy for our tax payer funded ABC to get away with blatant errors. If you are worried about Murdoch set up your own blog.

      Here's a nice example of how investigation into an article published by ABC news resulted in corrections being made to the IPCC AR4 report. These errors of course of no consequence to a true believer.

      http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/p/himalayaipcc.html

      report
    84. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      From outside the ruts you have created it's fun to watch you go around and round in circles, Again, if you have anything new to add to the debate let us know, else keep spinning buddy.

      report
  12. Pauline Billingsworth

    Anthropologist at UOL

    Temperatures are not rising! We know this because satellites circling the globe twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is...

    report
    1. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      When in doubt, cut and paste and label someone. That's POE's law, eh, Mike?

      Now do some real research and report back, not quoting some consensus feel good propaganda.

      report
    2. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to William Pinskey

      If you have to refer to a website to find content and opinion to post, then you have some serious issues with your own scientific credibility. Back to school and learn.

      report
    3. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Hah, I'd never heard of Poe's law. Excellent.

      It is extremely possible that Hendrix, Dean and Co. are all Poes. There can be no other explanation for such belligerent and persistent ignorance

      report
    4. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to William Pinskey

      If only that were true.

      John's article is being proven by Hendrix, Dean and Co. Stephen's work being called into question by said same is further conformation of the inherent cognitive bias. Of course, nothing that we say will ever convince them otherwise, only act as part of a backfire effect. The reason myself, Harrigan, Hansen, Cook, etc, debate them at all is so that those who are actually trying to become informed on the topic don't fall prey to their ramblings.
      Stephen commented today: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyCCCresponse1.html

      report
    5. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      No explanation as to why you posted a link to ""Mean annual unadjusted and fully adjusted minimum temperatures at Reno, Nevada" as evidence against AGW?

      I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt Pauline in suggesting that you were parodying climate science deniers. I mean - no one could be that big a numbskull - could they?

      report
    6. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Since the "Pauline Billingsworth" persona only appeared on The Conversation in the last 24 hours as an active comment contributor I feel that is a far more likely explanation.

      report
    7. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      G'day Grendelus,

      Yeah I've been having a bit of a look for any record of anyone by that name with a connection to matters anthropological without any luck ... can't find anything anywhere. Not a single publication, citation or public comment.

      Perhaps a self-taught anthropologist who has now moved into DIY climateology. I'm looking forward to her venture into neuroscience myself.

      Gotta love this interweb business... endless scope for invention.

      report
    8. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      I know! Pauline comments with such self assurance that I felt sure she must be able to establish academic bona fides through peer reviewed literature, but alas that slate is blank.

      report
    9. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Pauline Billingsworth

      Not a real anthropologist Alex. Just another denier troll.

      report
    1. Bruce Moon

      Bystander!

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim

      With all due respect, John led his polemic with the question of HOW, not WHY.

      That said, John argued his case by referring to the arguments attributable to WHY.

      As Malcolm Turnbull said in Perth on Wednesday, the climate change discussion is now so polarised that few would be oblivious to the arguments adopted / advocated by each side.

      I think he has a strong point.

      Rather than continue bogging ourselves down with inflammatory exchanges over WHY, lets just move forward to best…

      Read more
    2. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Some interesting psychological insights into the author of the piece above revealed in this article at Bishop Hill. It seems that astroturfing Amazon with favourable reviews of a book by Michael Mann is within the remit of someone who describes themselves as a Climate communication fellow. Now I wonder what the QLD university would make of this behaviour! Especially considering the contents of its staff code of conduct. Perhaps someone could write to them and find out.

      see...http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html

      report
    3. Marc Hendrickx

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

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      From the conclusion of that Bishop Hill Article, just in case you didn't get that far. Perhaps Lewandowsky can comment on the psychology of the sycophant?

      "Cook can try to rectify the situation. He can admit that he surrendered significant editorial control to Michael Mann over a topic in which he was an interested party. He can retract the articles on his website, indicating that he co-authored the hockey stick ‘rebuttals’ with Michael Mann.

      As far as Michael Mann is concerned, he could write his own articles and replies. He could open his eyes to the fact that skeptics didn’t pay much attention to his tedious book. He should probably give up trying to find ‘novel ways’ to explain science to the public."

      report
  13. Pauline Billingsworth

    Anthropologist at UOL

    The alarmists may have just discovered their answer to Lord Moncton right here. Have a good evening.

    report
  14. Geoffrey Henley

    Research Associate

    Sceptics do not reject climate science. They reject bad science.

    "So what happens when 97 out of 100 of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming?"

    This statement is not substantiated by the provided reference. In fact there is no credible research that substantiates this statement. That includes Doran and Zimmerman.

    Also the statement 'humans are causing global warming' is unscientific. It implies that only human activities can cause global warming, which is of course nonsense.

    report
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Cook

      Ahhh, the old Straw man argument. Is that anything like the Straw Prime Minister argument.

      You know, the one where the Prime Minister says she believes the climate sciences so she promised to close Australia's dirtiest brown coal fired Hazelwood power station.

      Then the Straw Prime Minister decided to reject the climate science and keep Hazelwood running.

      Is that a good explanation of the Straw Prime Minister argument?

      I thought it was.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      And before you attack me again Mr Williamson,

      I am not having a go at Prime Minister Gillard because she is a women, but because she is our Prime Minister.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    3. Geoffrey Henley

      Research Associate

      In reply to John Cook

      What you ignore is a good deal of peer-reviewed research that suggests global temperatures are not particularly sensitive to changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere once levels reach a certain threshold level (around 200 ppm). Adding more CO2 appears to have mimimal effect. There is also good evidence that negative feedback processes offset any rises in CO2.

      Global warming and cooling result from a complex interaction of many factors. Its not just about CO2 levels and solar radiation. That's too simplistic.
      Besides, global temps have not not risen significantly for some years now.

      Your argument that those who question CAGW reject science is not supported by any credible evidence.

      report
    4. Pauline Billingsworth

      Anthropologist at UOL

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Hear hear Geoffrey. If being a sceptic is not believing the rants of the doomsayers, and looking at the facts, then I put my hand up. Science is not about consensus.

      report
    5. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      'Sceptics do not reject climate science. They reject bad science.'

      And yet non peer reviewed articles are offered as truth!

      report
    6. Geoffrey Henley

      Research Associate

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      There is quite a lot of peer-reviewed research to support the sceptic's position. I guess if you never make the effort to look for it, then you won't find it.

      Besides, peer review is somewhat overrated. All you need is a editor who is an AGW symphatiser and you can get almost anything published.

      report
    7. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Geoff,

      I've actually spent a fair bit of time over the years looking for the peer reviewed skeptical position without success. This is usually explained by allegations that the perrs won't let it into press.

      I'm most gladdened to ;learn this is not true.

      Sling me a few links.

      report
    8. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Geoffrey, I must be pretty hopeless 'cos I can't find any. As Peter suggests, some links please.

      report
    9. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Cook

      And what precisely can we do about it? Have you refused to take air transport, cut up your driving licence or stopped taking daily showers? Of course not and neither will the Americans Chinese or Indians once they attain the standard of living that we take for granted.

      report
    10. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      "Besides, global temps have not not risen significantly for some years now."

      This is a strawman. Global temps rarely rise significantly over a period of a few years, even when there is a substantial long term change.

      report
    11. Geoffrey Henley

      Research Associate

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      You don't appear to even know the meaning of the term strawman. Strawman argument means to misrepresent someones else's point of view.

      So where have I done that?

      report
    12. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Thanks for that Geoff.

      I've only looked at the populartechnology list previously and I found that there are a raft of rather curious inclusions - many - very many of which - do not actually support a "skeptical" position of outright denial but rather question the rate and consequences but not the trend or the overall science.

      There are also some questions regarding the degree of peer review applied. For example, a few weeks back, a local phoney emeritus professor here claimed to have had…

      Read more
    13. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Strawman: "You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack." http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

      The argument is that CO2 increases cause thermal forcing or change in heat flux that, all other things being equal, will cause global average temperature to rise to restore radiation balance. A lack of "significant" warming over a limited period of time does not falsify this argument. Pretending that it does is a misrepresentation.

      report
    14. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Gee it's a broad church this denialism isn't it?

      I've spent several hours reading the papers you've provided and have completed the populartechnology list. I know... I should get some sort of medal.

      Now this is curious: There's every conceivable position in there ... CO2 is not increasing at all.... or, if it is, it's not a pollutant but a plant growth stimulant ... that it causes cooling ... that it doesn't affect temperature at all... that temperatures are declining, or standing still…

      Read more
    15. Geoffrey Henley

      Research Associate

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      You accuse me of using a strawman argument by using a strawman argument. I never said that a lack of warming in recent years falsified the CAGW hypothesis. What it does tell me is that the assertion of some alarmists that AGW is happening faster than predicted is not supported by the any real world data.

      To repeat, a strawman argument is to attack another person's argument by misrepresenting what that person has said. Look closely and you will find that I have not done that anywhere, although John Cook does it frequently.

      report
    16. Geoffrey Henley

      Research Associate

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      "It means looking past what is presented as fact to the reality underneath. "

      Maybe you should adopt this approach with the IPCC and you would find that the IPCC is not what it pretends to be. Its reports are heavily influenced by political and environmental activists. Its ranks include a number of scientists who are clearly out of their depth. Its peer review process is a joke. The IPCC is a second rate organisation producing second rate reports.

      report
    17. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      Can you be a bit more specific - eg what particular criticisms would you make of the peer review process - seems pretty open to me; which members of the IPCC are "out of their depth"; where would you see the black hand of environmental activists influencing the science or the reports? A lot more specific actually.

      report
    18. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      "What it does tell me is that the assertion of some alarmists that AGW is happening faster than predicted is not supported by the any real world data."

      Well it's nice of you to eventually tell us what proposition you really meant, especially after you said:

      "global temperatures are not particularly sensitive to changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere once levels reach a certain threshold level"

      You better be careful though. You wouldn't want to make a strawman argument against yourself…

      Read more
    19. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Geoffrey Henley

      "Its peer review process is a joke."

      In case you haven't noticed the IPCC is not a peer-reviewed journal. It makes use of peer-reviewed papers of course.

      report
  15. James Jenkin

    EFL Teacher Trainer

    I'm not comfortable with the use of psychology to 'explain' a belief, to label the person (e.g. as 'contrarian'), and to take action against them - whether it's AGW skepticism, astrology, opposition to vaccination or whatever unscientific view it might be.

    report
  16. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    How do people reject climate science? One way is to elect a woman to run your country.

    Chancellor Merkel of Germany has just reneged on Germany's committment to go soley renewable by 2050 by giving the go ahead to at least 20 new coal fired power stations. Germany, long the poster nation for the green movement, has taken advantage of cheap carbon credits from the dysfunctional European ETS scheme and cheap Polish coal.

    Prime Minister Gillard yesterday performed a backflip that would put the…

    Read more
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Stephanus Cecil Barnard

      Mr Williamson

      I reject your disgusting slur. Withdraw it at once.

      At no time did I exhibit any hatred of Prime Minister Gillard or Chancellor Merkel. In fact, I applaud both women's decisions whole heartedly. Common sense and the realisation that we need reliable, reasonably priced power, not only for industry and commerce but for the elderly and poor as well, has finally triumphed.

      My comment was to raise their sudden changes of mind on climate related policy. Both women publicly supported climate science in the past and spent millions of taxpayer dollars on supporting policies.

      The decision of both women to build or keep running coal fired power stations when they promised to do the opposite is a massive policy change. A change that surely can be questioned by voters such as myself.

      Their mind changes on these projects is directly related to the above article which explores why people don't believe the so called 'settled' science.

      Thank you

      Gerard Dean

      report
  17. Stephanus Cecil Barnard

    Town planner and freelance writer at Kalahariozzie

    Although  i am no climatologist, and do not claim to be, i had the subject up to honours level, and do understand the concept. While the entire argument of CO2 and heating of the atmosphere and dreadful consequences is logical, after twenty years or so of pushing it in every conceivable way, it has lost its impact. The doomsday sayers and the Greens have simply lost the people on the way to climate heaven. While many scientists are fretting about the shrinking polar ice caps, and well meaning activists…

    Read more
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Rob Crowther

      8 Blue ticks for a comment that includes the lines, '..the rise of the Bogan.' and '..one bogan is as good as another..' and ' we now live in an age of misinformation and fact free opinion.'

      Just what are you trying to say Mr Crowther?

      - Are you saying we need a degree in maths and physics before we can debate the issue at hand?
      - Are you saying that 'Bogans' are not free to express an opinion?
      - Are you saying Mr Cook's article settles fears or raised them?

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      "Are you saying we need a degree in maths and physics before we can debate the issue at hand?"

      Yes. This is precisely what most of the scientists are saying. Without proper education in the field of climate science, you have no idea WTF you are actually on about. This enables you to look at the science, ignore the stuff that is too hard, and harp on about the stuff you do understand, which is merely an effective form of sloganeering.

      The rest of your post is very much a non sequitur

      Interestingly, I read this scientific paper the other day. It turns out the conservatives are much more likely to bend the truth in order to fit their own views. I must say that it sure explains a whole lot.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/iq3axjogkuagn8a/Liu%20Ditto%2012%20What%20Dilemma%20SPPS.pdf

      report
    3. Rob Crowther

      Architectural Draftsman

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      My general rule is if it is isolated to the individual, they can do as they please. If affects society, then there is more to it.

      If people agree to debate and to express opinion then fantastic. If it means you learn something in the process then even better.

      If people wish to extend that and do it on behalf of others then they most definitely had better know what they are talking about. To do this, I would think an extensive education in the relevant field is mandatory.

      That’s debate.

      For opinion, you are entitled to it but not necessarily entitled to express it. Free speech is not opening your mouth and letting words fall out. It comes with responsibility. Part of the responsibility is making a decent attempt at getting it factually correct.

      As for the author and fear; I think he has made a decent attempt at getting it factually correct which, in my opinion, negates the issue of fear.

      report
  18. James Walker

    logged in via Facebook

    This article, like so many others, ignores that people *do* change their minds, and research things for themselves, and consider the evidence.

    Waving charts showing climate change for the last 200 years doesn't cut any ice with people who've seen the charts for the last 800K years, or for the last 65 million; it just makes you look stupid. Promptly abusing them as 'denialists' make you look like a conspiracy theorist. So, surprise, surprise, climate change gets disregarded as just another crackpot idea.

    If climate change is to be taken seriously, it needs to be defended seriously, clearly, and intelligently - talking down to people achieves nothing. Further, there needs to be a clear distinction made what the science says is happening on one hand, and the various attempts that are being made to deal with it on the other: arguing about climate and arguing about bumbling governments are two different things, and conflating them isn't helpful.

    report
    1. Alison George

      Tutor

      In reply to James Walker

      The last 800,000 years, as well as the previous 65 million years, tell us a lot about how the planet works as a planet.

      For our purposes, the main focus of interest is the last 200,000 years - since we arrived on the scene in our present form, along with the immediate past 10,000 years of developing our agriculture based civilisation. We know perfectly well that the planet survived billions of years without any of us at all and it would continue to do so if we magically vanished tomorrow…

      Read more
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to William Pinskey

      LOL Thanks William,

      Well - epic fail. Not a SINGLE ONE of you trolls had the courage or the intellectual capability to explain/debate my post. I note the fake fem anthropologist hasn't the wherewithal and has vacated the field. To be expected when actual evidence and logic is used though - like garlic to a vampire really :)

      Thanks to all of you though for proving the HOW is NOT to engage and debate the evidence but rather to bluster, gish gallop, obfuscate, slander and misrepresent.

      Mr…

      Read more
    2. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Dr Harrigan - what a brilliant post! I've never seen so many words that the average bloke hasn't heard of. Then I realised, after an extended period, that some of these were capitalised and that they (gasp) formed fiendishly clever acronyms. But of course we climate denialists are not the brighest lights in the harbour, as you continually and quite rightly point out.

      Your post reminded me of John Nash's undergraduate supervisor's five word recommendation to his potential doctoral supervisor - "this man is a genius" and no doubt similar words were conveyed when you started your doctorate. But then again your post also reminded me of "Pseuds Corner" in London's Private Eye and on reflection I'll stick with the latter.

      Disclosure 1: I am not a Climate Scientist or a Climate Science Psychologist.
      Discolusure 2: I will award myself a red tick after posting this just to get the ball rolling (-:)

      report
    3. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      Grant, I have you a blue tick, for the amusement value of your post, pure trolling gold. You did not address the substance of Mark's comment however.

      report
    4. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Damn you Grendelus with your blue tick. I can't get my i-phone to register a red one.

      I was merely alerting you to the fact that sentences such as "Blogorrhea Utterances Listing Logical Silliness Hardly Implying Truth" and other such asinine acronymic comments from Dr Harrigan (for a Doctor he is) represents the apotheosis of pompous intellectual snobbery.

      But remain unalerted if you wish (-:)

      report
    5. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      I will accept the appelation of "apotheosis of pompous intellectual snobbery" but will plead extenuating cricumstances of being driven to desperation by countless months and posts of posting evidence based refutations grounded in science of troll denier BS only to be regularly met with gish gallop obfuscation and blather.

      Sometimes, ones patience simply runs out and all that is left is humour and mockery - since they are evidence and logic immune.

      Mea Culpa :)

      report
  19. Michael Brown

    Professional, academic, company director

    "How do people reject climate science?"
    We reject it because (a) we're scientists and (b) by most objective measures the science is weak. Here is one of the many reasons: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong-20120801-23fdv.html
    And here is a glimpse of one of many examples of the objective evidence - directly contradicting all the modelling: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n5/full/ngeo1450.html

    report
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mr Cook

      Perhaps you can explain to Doctor Harrigan about those 'Implicit Deniers' we were discussing above.

      Recapping, an Implicit Denier is someone who believes in climate change science and the need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, but then chooses to burn JetA1 fuel on interstate and overseas holidays.

      When we add Literal Deniers, such as myself to Implicit Deniers, lo and behold, Deniers are in the majority.

      Happy Denying

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. Allan Williamson

      Interested Observer

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Well, the veneer of the jolly climate science denier has worn off and we see the real Gerard Dean - bilious, obsessed and boring. Sad really.

      report
    3. William Pinskey

      Accountant

      In reply to Michael Brown

      It is heartening to note that most of the people that commented on that article saw it the articla as the steaming pile it really is.

      report
    4. trevor prowse

      retired farmer

      In reply to John Cook

      This article reminds me of the person who was asked if they had stopped beating his wife..Any way you answer it means you implicate yourself. Secondly, the writer should be reminded that in a few cases the minority very occasionally are found to be correct. The example that comes to mind is Barry Marshall who had to overcome the medical professions doubts and derision for years ,only to be proved correct. The third personal doubts I have is my experience with climate scientists. I wrote to the BOM…

      Read more
    5. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to John Cook

      John.

      My interest in the irrationalists is their starting point ... the seed that germinates and starts them cherry picking to totally scramble a metaphor.

      It has to do with "certainty" I think. The "certainty" of what is, what they can see, what they have "always known" and believed. The certainty that the earth was flat.

      In other words the seed is inherently political - a reflection or manifestation of their world view which is deeply rooted in more of the same - inherently deeply profoundly conservative.

      I'm actually becoming far more interested in denialists and irrationalists and what motivates them than the physical science itself actually. What curious lot we are. At least in the sense of being strange. Being curious leads to science. Being strangely curious leads to something else entirely.

      report
    6. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Allan Williamson

      Allan, Your memory seems to need some jogging.
      "We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain theconversation.edu.au service as an inviting space to focus on intelligent discussions. Be courteous."

      report
    7. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to trevor prowse

      I have also written to Government websites asking for basic facts and have not received replies.
      Further the websites keep changing depending on the weather.
      there were claims that South-Eastern Australia climate had changed into one of semi-permanent drought until the floods. Then they changed it again.
      What they forget is that there are independent archiving systems for the Internet.

      report
    8. Peter Ormonde

      Farmer

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Ah yes, there's the rub Phil ... intelligent discussion.

      But what we hjave here is folks pretending to be dissident climate scientists, anthropologists (though why anyone would prtend to be one I'm not sure) and folks like yourself making all sorts of claims to their brilliant rebuttal of the science, but when asked for a bit, curl up in a ball and can't offer a single piece of evidence to support their genius.

      This is not an intelligent discussion Phil - any more than dragging a stick over an ants' nest will produce a considered response. You irrationalistas don't d