Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
The Australian has been conducting an uncompromising and unrelenting war on science, scientists and the scientific method, but if anyone criticises them for it, they react like scalded cats. So you could predict that they would whine when John Quiggin, in his column in the Australian Financial Review, wrote:
The Australian newspaper has campaigned against science and scientists so consistently that picking a single example would be misleading. Blogger Tim Lambert, who maintains a running series on The Australian's War on Science is now up to installment 46.
And sure enough their editorial responds by calling Quiggin a "green activist" with a "totalitarian mindset". But this post is about their war on science, not their name-calling, and it's clear that the writer of this editorial did as much research into the science as Calvin did on his school report on bats. Look:
Climate change is a new, inexact and contestable science, and the computer modelling on which all of the more alarming claims depend are only ever as good as the data fed in. As well as greenhouse emissions, that data should take account of other determinants of temperature, primarily the sun and the heat of the earth's core.
Models do take the sun into account and they don't take the heat from the core into account because it is negligible: just 0.075 Watts per square metre, while incoming solar radiation is 342 Watts per square metre, about 5000 times as much.
Current predictions for sea-level rises range from a few centimetres to catastrophic levels of several metres that would swamp coastal areas. Faced with such variations, it would be negligent not to examine first-hand observations, even when they contradict the results churned out by laboratory computers.
Oh yes, let's examine the observations from tide gauges and satellites:
But apparently because a computer was used to analyse the data, this doesn't count as far as The Australian is concerned. No, by "first hand observations", The Australian means:
For centuries, vital scientific discoveries began with observation. So we make no apologies for reporting that the Great Barrier Reef is defying predictions and showing minimal signs of bleaching or that surfers who have frequented the same beaches for 50 years have found no increases in sea levels, apart from temporary erosion.
As far as I can tell, the author of this editorial hasn't even studied science at the high school level. By "observations", scientists refer to systematic recording of objective measurements, for example, sea level observations from a tide gauge. They do not mean vague memories of what a beach was like decades ago.
And The Australian's story on the Great Barrier Reef misrepresented the facts.
Politics
Comments
I love how The Australian says:
"Climate change is a new, inexact and contestable science"
Obviously they've never heard of Arrhenius. By my reckoning that makes climate-change older than Relativity, String- Theory and Radio-Astronomy and about as old as Quantum Mechanics.
Posted by: Peter Pan | March 15, 2010 11:45 PM
But. But. But Venus is hot because its core is keeping the surface warm and not because of a CO2 atmosphere, so that means that the Earth's core HAS TO BE what's driving global warming, right?
Posted by: Brian Angliss | March 15, 2010 11:46 PM
Love the Calvin & Hobbes reference. Here are some more:
Calvin & Hobbes on how to solve the climate crisis: http://akwag.blogspot.com/2010/02/calvin-hobbes-on-how-to-solve-climate.html
And an old one, What do Calvin & Hobbes and Superfreaks have in common? http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-do-superfreaks-and-calvin-hobbes.html
Posted by: WAG | March 16, 2010 12:10 AM
Argh please stop with the stupid - it hurts!
Posted by: cbp | March 16, 2010 12:12 AM
Everyone knows that the Earth's core is why the equator is warmer than the poles. Just draw a circle in the middle of a map of the world, and it's obvious.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 16, 2010 12:15 AM
The list of headings in the "Related Coverage" box on the editorial page is irony in its purest form.
Posted by: Ezzthetic | March 16, 2010 12:24 AM
Wait a second - the earth is an oblate spheroid, so the poles are closer to the hot core. That means that the poles have to be hotter than the equator.
No wonder the ice at the poles is melting - it's the core. It's all the core! WE'VE GOT THE TROPICS IN THE WRONG PLACE!!11!
Posted by: Brian Angliss | March 16, 2010 12:29 AM
WOW, they've solved the global warming problem. Too many greenhouses. I bet if you plot numbers of greenhouses over the past 100 years it will pretty well match up to increases in temperature. Somebody better tell the law makers - no new greenhouses and all existing greenhouses should keep their ventilation systems closed to prevent greenhouse emissions. That should prevent any further increase in temperature.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | March 16, 2010 12:32 AM
[Off topic]
Posted by: Bulldust | March 16, 2010 12:36 AM
... except it wasn't the "group-think" statement that brought Holmes to his feet, it was Maurice Newman's trotting out the usual list of debunked anti-science defamatory smear, including unfounded, but serious accusations of scientific and journalistic misconduct.
Posted by: cbp | March 16, 2010 12:40 AM
@ Brian Angliss
Don't laugh I've heard the venus argument made with a straight face.
http://cosy.com/Science/DigestedGrayBalls.htm
It's ok of you can't hold back the laughter...
Posted by: ScruffyDan | March 16, 2010 1:16 AM
this is beyond stupid.
is there not a single guy with a working brain somewhere around that newspaper?
Posted by: s | March 16, 2010 1:28 AM
Wait, aren't we upto #48?
Also, did you see this attempt by The Australian to bash Dawkins? This quote is fantastic:
"...although terrible things indeed have been done in the name of religion, the fact remains that Christianity and the Hebrew Bible form the foundation stone of Western civilisation and its great cause of human equality and freedom"
Posted by: Thomas Moore | March 16, 2010 1:40 AM
Oops, you're right -- we're up to number 48 now.
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 16, 2010 1:45 AM
I agree, The Oz's position on science is lamentable... however I could be mistaken in thinking this, but I detect a slight backing away from outright scepticism.
Read today's editorial on the CSIRO's "State of the climate". They are giving themselves an out by stressing "Really it's about the best science":
" Cool voice of reason on climate
...CSIRO executive director Dr Megan Clark correctly points out the value of scientific observation and hard data, the hallmarks of the new report, which is based on some of the most accurate meteorology records in the world. The report is a useful resource to inform sensible debate."
They are playing the "honest broker" card (even if they have not been). Now the science is being presented in a clear manner, they are slowly - every so slowly - backing away from their "sceptical stance".
Sure, more dishonest misinformation will make it's way into The Oz... but, CSIRO's new paper has boxed them into supporting the science.
If they don't accept it, they will have to attack CSIRO and BoM outright on charges of lying, manipulation etc. (ala Bolt). But they can't if they want to retain even a veneer of "quality journalism".
IMHO, I detect some back peddling (note this is in now way a defence of the poor quality of their reporting).
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 2:04 AM
Mike, have you seen in anything in the CSIRO statement that is substantially different to the IPCC?
Posted by: jakerman | March 16, 2010 3:03 AM
They also crashed and burned on their report on the ruling by the Vaccine Court in the United States that there is no link between thimerosal and autism.
They managed to engage my ire with a single quote:
"Meanwhile, in reaction to the concerns of parents, thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines in the United States."
Meanwhile?
1999 is meanwhile?
Idiots
Posted by: Grendel | March 16, 2010 3:08 AM
Well well well, seems that crikey.com.au have commissioned researchers at the University or Technology, Sydney to analyse how much of the content in Australian newspapers is PR and copy-pasted spin.
Turns out that for The Australian they find that over the 5 week study period 56% of content was "PR driven", and 19.26% of stories consisted of "straight public relations or promotion with no significant extra journalism work".
Posted by: Craig Allen | March 16, 2010 4:11 AM
I may be mistaken in this, but has not this whole "surfers who have frequented the same beaches for 50 years" angle been seeded by the realisation in certain circles that WGII 'evidence' legitimately includes "observations"** by (e.g.) mountaineers of receding glaciers?
**i.e. 'Observations' in the sense of images and written descriptions of glacier-snout location, emergence of nunataks etc.
Posted by: Hasis | March 16, 2010 4:21 AM
Tim , I'm off topic a little bit (but same stable as The Australian); this is what Bolt wrote to Quiggin,
Bolt is just completely divorced from the reality of what he writes. And you got off lightly!
Tim Flannery, for example, gets beaten up regularly.
Posted by: Andrew | March 16, 2010 4:23 AM
Quiggin? Rings a bell ... would that be the same fair-minded, judicious Quiggin who wrote this:
"I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime…
So, to sum up, McIntyre organised the campaign which led to the creation of the file, obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, received the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. Whether or not he was directly involved in the theft, or merely created the opportunity and benefited from the proceeds is impossible to determine, and essentially irrelevant.
Oooops! See you all in court. Such fun!
Posted by: David Duff | March 16, 2010 4:51 AM
@ jakerman "Mike, have you seen in anything in the CSIRO statement that is substantially different to the IPCC?"
It's not that what they are saying is different, it's that this approach cuts through the noise and tranlates the science into a document easily understood by anyone. The IPCC reports are dense, multi-volume reports of thousands of pages. How many ordinary Australians will take the time to read those docs?
The CSIRO, for want of a better description is an "Aussie brand". National self pride and the high regard most Australians have for CSIRO lends wait to their statements. The IPCC is barely known, and thanks to the deniers their status has been tarnished (plus some foolish own goals by the IPCC).
The Herald Sun, the home of Bolt et.al. had a two page colour spread devoted to the document with an interview with and "Aussie battler" farmer. It translate the science and makes it real for the average Australian.
Deniers have clouded the debate with misinformation - the CSRIO document cuts through that with simple, strong messages. Maps of Australia so how rainfall patterns have changed make it easily understandable.
We should be promoting this doc to everyone and supporting their efforts to cut through the noise.
OK, I'm sorry to mention by own blog (really I am!) but my points are more clear there: http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/csiro-forces-the-hand-of-the-media-reshapes-the-debate/
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 4:52 AM
Andrew
Flannery became Australian of the Year, undeservedly. His long range weather forecasting has been woeful.
The CC debate has reached a tipping point where pseudo-facts are supplanting facts, and without counter evidence the electorate will not be in a position to discriminate between them. Freedom of expression is something we shouldn't take for granted.
What the Bolter wrote was good advice, but I fear it's too late.
Posted by: el gordo | March 16, 2010 4:53 AM
Oooops, again, the penultimate paragraph should have been in quotes, of course.
Posted by: David Duff | March 16, 2010 5:02 AM
@ el gordo
The CC debate has reached a tipping point where pseudo-facts are supplanting facts, and without counter evidence the electorate will not be in a position to discriminate between them. Freedom of expression is something we shouldn't take for granted.
More dark hints of conspiracies...?
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 5:09 AM
El Gordo:
That is an extremely accurate statement El Gordo, and I couldn't agree more. That is spot on the money!
Pseudofact: Scientists rigged data.
Pseudofact: Raw data was kept secret.
Pseudofact: The IPCC report is discredited.
Pseudofact: Deletion of cold climate met stations biases the temperature anomaly record towards warming.
Pseudofact: Urban stations bias the temperature record towards warming.
Pseudofact: The Barrier Reef is not at risk.
I for one have had enough of pseudofacts, and wrote a cranky letter to the Australian today. The hot air coming out of the editorial office at The Australian is far more of a climate concern than heat from the earth's core and the professional opinion of a geriatric surfie. I mean, for crying out loud....
@11. I too have heard the Venus argument, and the Mars argument. A little part of my brain dies every time these stupid arguments get repeated. Pretty soon, there'll be nothing left. I'll be in a vegetative state.
Posted by: The other Mike | March 16, 2010 5:21 AM
David Duff not sure your point but I agree..
Posted by: Andrew | March 16, 2010 5:35 AM
Mike, comment 15
I was surprised with today's editorial but not too excited. Just when I thought I would give up the Weekend Australian several weeks ago, they published Mike Stekatee's sensible 'Sceptics derail well-founded climate action'. But for every opinion in support of AGW, I estimate they must publish at least another five against.
I have been very reluctant to give up ‘The Australian’ as it is only ‘quality’ daily newspaper available in regional Queensland. I don’t care if the political opinion does not agree with my own but I do care when scientific information is distorted and trivialised. The onslaught in last Friday’s Australian culminating in that ridiculous editorial was the final straw. I simply can’t be bothered to purchase a paper serving a few scraps of credibility amongst a diet of junk science and redneck propaganda.
Posted by: Shirley | March 16, 2010 5:36 AM
el gordo
...you don't understand hypocrisy out in Bathurst?
Posted by: Andrew | March 16, 2010 5:45 AM
There is no mass conspiracy, the media has been asleep on the real Gorebull Worming story.
Posted by: el gordo | March 16, 2010 5:45 AM
"So we make no apologies for reporting that the Great Barrier Reef is defying predictions and showing minimal signs of bleaching or that surfers who have frequented the same beaches for 50 years have found no increases in sea levels, apart from temporary erosion."
So what does this mean? Spangled Drongo's their correspondent?
I wondered about the lack of quotes, David @21. For a brief moment I thought you'd joined the enlightened side.
Posted by: Don Wigan | March 16, 2010 5:47 AM
Wow, McIntyre & Watts' useful idiots can't even cut and paste properly...
Posted by: Neil | March 16, 2010 5:56 AM
Craig Allan, that is a great tip-off and looks like it could be a very interesting study.
Any idea how old the stories need to be before Crikey make them free-access to casual and other 'squatter' readers? It used to be a week or a little longer, but they may have changed their model of access.
Cheers.
Posted by: jakerman | March 16, 2010 6:01 AM
@ Shirley post 28
I certainly wouldn't overstate The Oz's turn around. Lots of more denial and junk science from them. However, I see it as a small, but significant concession on their behalf.
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 6:10 AM
Alas, no, Don, I remain stumbling about in the dark with only a guttering candle to see my way but on the other hand there's enough light to spot a juicy libel case in the offing. Goody, goody!
Also, I do enjoy all you lot wasting your time desperately trying to breathe life into the corpse of AGW. I keep telling you guys and gals, it's over, it's dead, this particular 'end-of-the-world' scare is over, it is an ex-scare and has ceased to be! (Apologies to Python - and the parrot.) Move on into the 21st century and be in the vanguard of the all-new scare story 'de nos jours' - Exploding Meteorites! Of course, I realise it lacks that essential ingredient so beloved of you all - human wickedness as a cause - but still, it will have to do.
"Movement of an orange dwarf star with a mass of about half that of the Sun will eventually bring it right to the solar system, stellar data analysis indicates. [...] Bobylev analyzed the measured movements of about 35,000 stars in our neighborhood in the time interval from 2 million years in the past to 2 million years in the future. It resulted in adding nine new stars to the list of those which experience close encounters with the Solar system – either in the past or in the future, he reports in a paper published on arXiv.org website."
Scarey, eh? Something for you lot to get really excited about. Of course the story comes via 'Russian News' but, hey, when did you lot worry overmuch about provenance?
Posted by: David Duff | March 16, 2010 6:11 AM
22 Mike: "The IPCC reports are dense, multi-volume reports of thousands of pages. How many ordinary Australians will take the time to read those docs?"
Also, as Winston Churchill pointed out; "The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read."
Posted by: J Bowers | March 16, 2010 6:13 AM
@ J Bowers post 35
Lol at Churchill comment :)
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 6:30 AM
David Duff@21 "Oooops! See you all in court. Such fun!"
Whilst I wouldn't wish the stress on Quiggin, I for one would be happy if McIntyre sued. I suspect the discovery phase for such a case would be extremely educational.
Regards
Luke
Posted by: Luke Silburn | March 16, 2010 6:31 AM
Luke@37 that's exactly why McIntyre won't sue for libel.In any case I think an analysis of methods , means and motivation point directly at McIntyre. Also it is unlikey that other parties interested in derailing Copenhagen were involved in hacking the CRU.
Posted by: Bill O'Slatter | March 16, 2010 6:53 AM
s@12
"...is there not a single guy with a working brain somewhere around that newspaper?"
I take it you're ruling out women and married men.
Posted by: Hal9000 | March 16, 2010 7:19 AM
The women are too smart to work for it in the first place, and the married men generally have women giving them advice ;-)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 16, 2010 7:53 AM
I love reading the Australian. It's like putting on a pair of wingnut goggles and seeing the world as they do.
And yeah, the opinion piece about Dawkins was great. Talk about strawman arguments.
Posted by: Nils Ross | March 16, 2010 7:54 AM
Jakerman #33:
If you look on the right of the criky.com.au headline page with that story about The Australian's dodginess you will see that you can sign up for a 21 day trial account.
Posted by: Craig Allen | March 16, 2010 7:56 AM
el gordo:
If an ignorant idiot like el gordo thinks Flannery didn't deserve Australian of the year then it was probably a good choice.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 16, 2010 10:00 AM
@ Scruffy Dan
I had Bob Armstrong of that same link come to my blog and make the Venus claim there, which is how I knew about it. Funny - he hasn't been back after I quantitatively showed that the claim was complete BS.
I smacked down the "Venus is hot from a collision" thing that he and others have claimed at the same time. It was fun.
Posted by: Brian Angliss | March 16, 2010 10:55 AM
"Oooops, again, the penultimate paragraph should have been in quotes, of course."
Don't worry Duff, I don't think anyone would have mistaken you as the author of such lucidity.
Posted by: slaw | March 16, 2010 12:42 PM
el gordo@23 wrote
given that he's a Palaeontologist I'm pretty sure he relies on others for the detailed weather analysis and forecasting...possibly even relies on others for climate data too?
I thought maybe he got Australian of the Year for his natty hats?
Posted by: Happy | March 16, 2010 1:54 PM
El Gordo wittered:
This is really the true standard for self-avowed "skeptics" in this cointext. Apparently for them being a skeptic involves mindlessly repeating hackneyed, vacuous and utterly puerile ad hominem phrases that can be repeated by equally mindless people unengaged with the science but with tribal connections to the politcal right.
If this is what skepticism amounts to for them one does wonder why the deniers prefer being called "skeptics". Plainly, denier is no less flattering. Clearly, the only reason can be that they like to pretend they are one thing while being another. If there is a scam going on in this conflict, it is amongst the anti-mitigation delusionals.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 16, 2010 4:06 PM
The Australian Editorial said:
The earths core!?, what brand of brainless are they smoking?
Posted by: Pacal
| March 16, 2010 4:10 PM
Pacal, to quote Shit-Sherlock Holmes:
"Once you have eliminated global warming (because you don't like the idea, so it's obviously wrong), whatever remains, however obviously batshit insane, must be trotted out at least once."
Posted by: ligne | March 16, 2010 5:35 PM
I thought I'd draw every-one's attention to this fascinating study from Stanford on the issue of "fair and balanced" reporting:
*"Stanford University researchers have released a working paper reporting a new study, which documents how climate change skeptics can affect Americans' thinking about climate change. A synopsis of the study findings is below, including videos used in the study that feature interviews of mainstream and skeptical scientists discussing global warming issues. (See links in left-margin for detailed summary of study methods and findings)...
...The news stories that respondents watched featured the views of only one skeptic and made no claims about the prevalence of such skeptical views. Nonetheless, respondents generalized from a single skeptic to scientists more generally, perceiving less agreement in the scientific community broadly. Our findings suggest that balanced news coverage may have been at least partly responsible for discrepancies between the American public and the scientific community on issues of climate change."*
http://woods.stanford.edu/research/global-warming-skeptics.html
Interesting: simply including a sceptic/denier in the debate is enough to convey the impression that is far less "scientific consensus" on climate change than there really is. Now, I wouldn't call to ban sceptics from debates, as that only fuels their paranoia and is a restriction on "free speech". My question is how to we address the issue of public perception.
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 6:50 PM
Mike, any chance they published your letter?
As an aside, Prof Lowe of Griffith University likes to tell his students to read The Australian at least once a week, to "keep your disgust fresh."
Posted by: foram | March 16, 2010 7:12 PM
Mike said:
Insist that every party to the discussion account for their views by reference to published work in journals of record. Insist that where their views conflict with claims being made in such journals of record they explain what is wrong with the reasoning or data on which these journals rely and specify when and where they are going to publish their findings. If they can't or won't do that they don't go to air or into print. Simple.
Then, even if they speak utter tosh they don't get to waffle on or gish gallop, and others can then challenge their specific claims. To take one obvious exaple in this thread, if someone says we should "take the sun into account" we ask them to outline how much and in what ways it is taken into account in current climate modelling and why this is inadequate. If they say the Earth's core is heating us up we ask them to compare this source to the heating coming from the sun in W/M2. Underwater volcanoes?
How many? Where? What volumes of emissions? What measurements or proxies bear this out?
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 16, 2010 7:22 PM
@51 Foram, I haven't checked yet, but I seriously doubt it, especially as it casts aspersions on both their editorial balance and their understanding of very basic scientific concepts. It was also probably too long for them to bother editing down to size.
I did get a letter published prominently on their letters blog a few months back (minus the entire last paragraph which was fairly integral to my point, and whether it qualified for the print edition I'm not sure) after the "climategate" episode. It simply called for calmer debate on both sides and pointed out that claims of grand conspiracies were not exactly rational.
I was attacked from all sides by sceptic comments trotting out every familiar argument under the sun.
Posted by: The other Mike | March 16, 2010 7:54 PM
@#30 "el gordo": Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bla Gorebull Worming blah.
Yes, concern for global warming begins and ends with AAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE!
Now begone, foul troll.
Posted by: Ray C. | March 16, 2010 8:24 PM
Look away, Ray! There's an elephant in the room.
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate-works-for-alp.html
Posted by: el gordo | March 16, 2010 8:59 PM
If a sceptic says "it's the Earth's core keeping us warm", demand that they give us all the evidence - including all negative evidence - that they can find in the scientific literature, at least one recent review article (in scientific literature), and/or their own quantitative estimates based upon evidence from what is known about the Earth's interior. Furthermore, they need to demonstrate that the heat flows from the Earth's interior have changed in a manner and by an amoount that is consistent with the new (50 years or so) global warming trend. I'll bet they have trouble with that step.
I mean, really, why should we waste time gathering the data that blows apart their claim? Let the sceptic gather the data for us. If they cannot then they are rubbish. If they can then well and good, we may compare their best estimates against what is in climate models already, and so on.
Posted by: Donald Oats | March 16, 2010 9:05 PM
To which the natural "skeptic" reply is "The IPCC are controlling the journals! The peer review process is flawed! All science journals have a political agenda! Everybody is supressing The Truth!"
Posted by: John | March 16, 2010 9:27 PM
We don't care what their reply is. Their admission ticket to having their remarks published as expert opinion is clear. Let them squeal about these things in cyberspace or on street corners. Them's the rules.
My standard doesn't actually require that they publish to be rerported and quoted, so they can't really claim suppression. Nobody is stopping you, their interlocutors could say. Make your specific claim and show how it better illuminates an area of concern than published work, explaining the latter's deficiencies.
It merely demands that they demonstarate that they have understood and are responding analytically to claims in peer-reviewed publications, however they are doctored.
If they tried that, then those claims could then be sourced and consisidered with a qualified person from the mainstream science able to respond to the critique. These challeneges could then be put to the "skeptic" and we would actually have a discussion on the merits.
Importantly, there would be a chance to contrast the claims of some "skeptics" with the claims of others so we could have them demolish each other instead of being part of a unified happy club of people who simply disagree with mainstream science in ways that don't cohere.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 16, 2010 9:44 PM
Re el gordo...
Is a "do not feed the trolls" policy appropriate at this point?
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 10:32 PM
@ Fran & John posts 57-58
It's almost impossible to disprove a conspiracy theory... hmmmm, acutally by their nature their immune to falsificaiton. Best response: irony
"A conspiracy you say? Oh my,how dreadful... is Elvis helping to co-ordinate that?"
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2010 10:36 PM
Some might suggest that this juvenile taunt invokes Godwin's Law. Either way it stinks of lack of solid argument.
And this is the core distinction between "skeptic" and "denier". The former can explain and critique the position they are skeptical of in some plausibly coherent fashion - which necessarily requires understanding of the argument; the latter generally fails to demonstrate that they even understand the argument they are denying, and does not have a plausible coherent critique of it.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 16, 2010 10:37 PM
As a member of the Denialati I take exception to Godwin's Law suggesting we don't understand the arguments.
The problem lies on your side for failing to communicate successfully, in a way that my comrades will understand.
Posted by: el gordo | March 16, 2010 11:11 PM
No the problem lies with you for refusing to understand because it clashes with your pre-conceived ideology.
Posted by: John | March 16, 2010 11:15 PM
When El Gordo said:
John responded:
This is the problem. As the aphorism goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
At the moment, the 'denialati' are covering their eyes, blocking their ears and saying "la la la" and varuious comforting-to-them phrases e.g. "Gorebull Worming" quite loudly.
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| March 16, 2010 11:39 PM
Lotharson above @ 61:
exactly right, and a point I made in roughly those terms at The Drum in response to a self-avowed "skeptic".
Being a skeptic is not being a random rock thrower. The skeptic know which rocks are fit for purpose, and where they must be delivered. He or she objects when people throw the wrong rocks or throw them at the wrong targets and doesn't make common cause. The skeptic seeks clarity and insists on robust rules that foster it.
This description would not identify those wrapping themselves in the artefacts of skepticism in this matter.
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| March 16, 2010 11:48 PM
Tough.
If you feel the need to use terms that sound like a well known Nazi to describe someone and/or try to pin responsibility for the science on someone who is not the author of any of the key science...then you might want to ask yourself whether that might undermine your self-belief that you understand the arguments, in the eyes of others, if not your own.
And you might consider whether:
also undermines any claim you might wish to make of understanding the arguments.
(Cue the "does not" or "was not intended to" sound like that argument(s) in 3...2...1...)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 17, 2010 12:52 AM
The problem lies on your side for failing to communicate successfully, in a way that my comrades will understand.
Yeah, those pesky scrutiny shy scientists, insisting on publishing their mysterious, so called evidence and logic in the secretive cabal of mainstream peer reviewed journals, instead of in the only appropriate organ of Scientific Truth and Moral Decency, Teh Australian.
Clearly any problem with public understanding of climate science, is entirely due to the PR failings of mainstream climate scientists. Their noble, heroic critics and opponents obviously have absolutely nothing to do with any such misunderstandings, and indeed have been working tirelessly and selflessly to rectify this situation.
Posted by: WotWot | March 17, 2010 12:58 AM
As a member of the Denialati I take exception to Godwin's Law suggesting we don't understand the arguments.
Is "Denialati" a synonym for "stupid"? The Godwin's Law comment was about you not offering an argument.
The problem lies on your side for failing to communicate successfully, in a way that my comrades will understand.
It works for people who are intelligent and intellectually honest.
Posted by: truth machine | March 17, 2010 3:01 AM
There's an elephant in the room.
There's an ad hominem in your argumentum.
Posted by: truth machine | March 17, 2010 3:09 AM
El Gordo has "comrades" - evidence of secretly being part of a communist conspiracy. An agent provocateur perhaps, undermining skepticism of climate change with reverse psychology? By bringing down the opinion of denialists he works for the conspiracy.
Posted by: Ken Fabos | March 17, 2010 3:16 AM
He he he.
Posted by: WotWot | March 17, 2010 3:25 AM
Argumentum ad ex nihilo.
Posted by: el gordo | March 17, 2010 3:45 AM
El Gordo again demonstrated his copy and paste intellectualism, this time as follows:
You can't have it ad and ex at the same time.
It's either an argument (amounting) to [ad] nothing, or an argument from [ex] nothing.
There is a difference between a pretend or 'nothing' argument and one without any foundation, not that you would spot a subtlety like that.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 17, 2010 4:07 AM
TM.
The term 'Denialati' cropped up as a response to Frank Bi's (ironic) use of the term 'Climatati' - a secretive group of climatological conspiracists apparently perpetrating the AGW fraud.
By inference the Denialati are those climate change denialists who subscribe to the conspiracy theory of AGW, and who may or may not feel disposed nevertheless to conspire amongst themselves in order to white-ant scientific fact for their own ideological ends.
In this regard, I suppose that "Denialati" is a synonym for "stupid"...
Isn't it ironic then that Fatso embraces the term so enthusiastically?
Posted by: Bernard J. | March 17, 2010 4:47 AM
@Bill O'Slatter | March 16, 2010 6:53 AM In any case I think an analysis of methods , means and motivation point directly at McIntyre. Also it is unlikey that other parties interested in derailing Copenhagen were involved in hacking the CRU.
Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? John R. Mashey February 11, 2010 V 1.0.1
Dr Mashey meticulously chronicles and documents the vested interests' subversion of ideological propensities of certain political groups and the almost innumerable deceits, distortions conspiracies and the downright lies, used by right-wing Americans to undermine science, ever since the Tobacco Industry discovered that to combat science, all they needed was to spread doubt! Of course, the original Tobacco strategy has been expanded to exploit the power of internet blogs and websites. On page 22, Dr. Mashey catalogues the crescendo of Denial Industry manufactured stunts and events in the run-up to Copenhagen, which were intended to and succeeded in derailing the COP15 Climate conference and have led to a new low in public perception of AGW science, in sharp contrast with the continued accumulating of scientific evidence . The crescendo is in itself circumstantial evidence of a carefully planned and coordinated campaign, including the CRU hack and associated attempted hacks / break-ins.
A new version is due out tomorrow!
Posted by: ScaredAmoeba
| March 17, 2010 6:14 AM
Hi Tim,
I've sent you an email with the title "Alien Hand Syndrome" with a publication attached... its not spam!!!
-C
Posted by: Toujours Curieux | March 17, 2010 8:50 AM
ScaredAmoeba, would you recheck that URL for John Mashey's document? It's not working at the moment.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | March 17, 2010 12:59 PM
Hank, the document is attached at the bottom of this post.
Posted by: Dave R | March 17, 2010 1:12 PM
A bit late to the game here, but after seeing Duff make an argument for a court case, I must draw attention to the Sue Us Petition.
Think you have a case? Then stop just claiming you'll sue - Bring it on already! I mean, John Coleman has been "going to" sue Al Gore for what, almost three years now? What's stopping him?
Posted by: Brian D | March 17, 2010 1:40 PM
There was a disappointing lack of actual bugs in this post :( But thank you for keeping up the good fight.
Posted by: bug | March 17, 2010 3:10 PM
The Australian can't even report on something as simple as a cyclone without screwing it up. Observe: "Category-four cyclone Ului, unleashing destructive winds of up to 225km/h, has blasted past the Solomon Islands and Fiji."
Cyclone Tomas is the one that hit Fiji.
Posted by: V. infernalis
| March 17, 2010 5:18 PM
It's inconvenient to lose your PR trick.
Perhaps it's like why the Republicans never outlaw abortion - it's more convenient to have a reason for the Religious Right to vote for you over the other guys than it is to satisfy their desires and lose that reason.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 17, 2010 7:55 PM
Warmists feel disposed nevertheless to conspire amongst themselves in order to white-ant scientific fact for their own ideological ends.
Argumentum ad nauseam.
Posted by: el gordo | March 17, 2010 9:44 PM
Yep. It's all a big conspiracy. What surprises me is that you took so long to discover it. Scientists have been hatching this plot for several decades now.
What better way to impose the World Communist Government than to make people think the planet is warming? Brilliantly simple!
Posted by: The other Mike | March 17, 2010 9:58 PM
el gorod labels his own baseless claims:
Argumentum ad nauseam.
I'd add , Proloquium vacuus testimonium; and fossor conitor ratio
Proloquium vacuus testimonium
Posted by: jakerman | March 17, 2010 10:06 PM
@ The Other Mike post 85.
Wen's the next meeting for our global conspiracy? My calendar is filling up, but I'm keen to put forward a proposal to place a tax on all blogs in Western Democracies. That way we can shut down the climate change sceptics. They will never be able to afford it and we can tax them back into the stone age. Muh ha ha ha! Gore will lurv it!
Ooooops! Did I admit that in public? My bad. ;)
Posted by: Mike | March 17, 2010 10:46 PM
el gordo:
At least the idiot realizes it's a giant conspiracy.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 17, 2010 10:54 PM
Thankfully you executed a beautiful modified limited hangout as taught in your Soros Agitprop Corps training. You carefully left out the really brilliant part - that World Communist Government will be imposed through Capitalist Running Dog proxies such as the malificent Goldman Sachs and co, aided and abetted by Free Market Uber Alles Ideology. The irony is most pleasing, but we wouldn't want to let that detail out of the bag. The sound of heads exploding all over the place would be deafening, and that would alert the opiated masses that something was afoot before the Space Based Narrowband Covert Climate Modulation Laser Arrays were in place. Viva the Conspiracy!
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 17, 2010 10:56 PM
You may not have heard of Futerra and the Rules of the Game. They think it's just PR, but it's really Groupthink.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/28/unearthed-files-include-a-8220-rulesa-82
Posted by: el gordo | March 17, 2010 11:00 PM
Don't forget Al Gore who has made over 11 trillion dollars from global warming alarmism.
Posted by: John | March 17, 2010 11:01 PM
Just so you don't have to click El Gordo's link everyone, the post is entitled "Unearthed Files Include “Rules” for Mass Mind Control Campaign".
No, really.
Posted by: John | March 17, 2010 11:06 PM
Mike asked:
Ah, you missed the memo, written carefully in secret code in the hockey stick graph.
Shame on you for blabbing about the plan though. Hopefully, nobody here will publicise this.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 17, 2010 11:12 PM
John
“Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution.”
Seems reasonable, I'll drop my global cooling mantra.
Posted by: el gordo | March 18, 2010 12:22 AM
@ Fran post 93
...Again, my bad! Dang it I was never good with the maths stuff. All too "tricky for me", what with Manne hiding the decline as well! Cheeky monkey that Manne, always putting the secret messages in his graphs!
Posted by: Mike | March 18, 2010 12:52 AM
The Australian is a fan of post-modernism, and is accordingly trying to convert science into a matter of opinion.
Time for another plug for my pro-science petition.
Posted by: Philip Machanick | March 18, 2010 5:03 AM
Philip
I admit to being a left-liberal. I wonder if its akin to being a Liberal-Democrat?
Posted by: el gordo | March 18, 2010 5:20 AM
On the issue of faux balance, my response is why after the markets report at the end of the news do we not get a Trotskyite rebuttal?
Posted by: Philip Machanick | March 18, 2010 5:50 AM
el gordo, it depends where you live. In Australia, a "Liberal" is a right wing conservative. In the US, a "liberal" is a mildly left of centre social democrat.
Posted by: Philip Machanick | March 18, 2010 5:53 AM
A Trotskyite rebuttal would have more substance, Philip. Of course, there's no profit in running one of those
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 18, 2010 6:39 AM
No way are you a left-liberal El Gordo. You ticvk none of the boxes, including some that are key -- a basic respect for the institutions of liberal secular society, for knowledge and scientific inquiry.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 18, 2010 6:43 AM
Gordo is lying. Otherwise, why would he think he has to "admit" to having left wing views like it's some kind of dirty secret?
Posted by: John | March 18, 2010 7:24 AM
Even mildly right-of-centre in rest-of-world terms counts as "liberal" in the US.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 18, 2010 7:34 AM
The warmists have promulgated ideology in the name of science, this was a mistake.
Posted by: el gordo | March 18, 2010 7:38 AM
el gordo you are bazzar, confessing your claimed ideology then projecting what ever it was you felt.
The deniers have turned this into an ideological battle. In doing so they handed the high ground and the science into the hands of who ever their ideological opponents are.
Rather than adjust their ideology to fit reality, the deniers are picking up ideological momentum and weaving it into scientific conspiracy theories and an all out misinformation and propaganda blitz. If they aren't stopped the risk is they'll take us all over the cliff with them.
Posted by: jakerman | March 18, 2010 7:55 AM
Damned greenhouse gases. Spreading their "I'm not gonna let this longwave radiation escape" ideology all over the planet. Who are they to dictate terms to us?
Posted by: The other Mike | March 18, 2010 8:01 AM
Have you ever heard of the science of palaeoclimatology?
No?
Didn't think so.
Even mainstream conservative in rest-of-world terms counts as "liberal" in the US. That includes Kerry, both Clintons, and Obama.
Bizarre.
Please explain step 2.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 18, 2010 12:10 PM
Surfers are scientific instruments now ??? OK, I know it's Australia, but still. What are they going to do next ? Use kangaroos as eyewitnesses ?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 18, 2010 12:47 PM
106 Damned greenhouse gases. Spreading their "I'm not gonna let this longwave radiation escape" ideology all over the planet. Who are they to dictate terms to us?
Yes, just look at the pictures of CO2 molecules on Wikipedia. Red and black - proves they are part of a commu-fascist scheme!
Posted by: Lars Karlsson | March 18, 2010 5:15 PM
Please explain step 2.
Green pills.
Posted by: el gordo | March 18, 2010 7:06 PM
What better way to impose the World Communist Government than to make people think the planet is warming?
Stage an attack from Mars.
Posted by: truth machine | March 18, 2010 7:27 PM
Silly, we already tried that.
Posted by: Ezzthetic | March 19, 2010 11:17 PM
Christopher Thill@ 107 said
Only if you could decipher those chewing noises they make by converting them from binary.
Personally, I'd say the kangaroos are already loose in their top paddocks.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 19, 2010 11:30 PM
Christophe (108): on reliable sources of data baseline climate data, if it comes to a choice between roos and right-wing Boltard clones from the Oz, I know who I'll be listening to.
What's that Skip? You reckon you've never seen the top paddock this dry for this long? Geeze... 8^)
Posted by: Steve C | March 20, 2010 3:35 AM
Posted by: Ezzthetic | March 20, 2010 7:46 AM
@Lotharsson 41: lol! Good one.
Posted by: Daniel J. Andrews | March 20, 2010 7:02 PM
Ezzthetic said:
Odd ... when Hubby parsed his he got is that a joey in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me ...
And that was after 32-bit CRC
I'll be glad when they can do hexadecimal.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 21, 2010 1:36 AM