AAP reports from the future

This story from the Australian Associated Press contains the usual scare-mongering from Ian Plimer:

AAP November 19, 2009 01:36pm

Australia will go broke and become the laughing stock of the world if politicians ignore basic science on climate change, a leading global warming sceptic says.

But there is one intriguing detail:

Prof Plimer’s comments came as he delivered the annual Essington Lewis Memorial Lecture in honour of a former chief executive and chairman of BHP.

And that lecture won’t be delivered until 6pm today (Nov 19).

I think it is awesome that the AAP can report from the future, but I would find it more more interesting if they reported the Lotto results rather than something as predictable as a Plimer lecture.

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    November 21, 2009

    Before you get excited, Michael. We all know click has five letters.

    Darn this global warming heat.

  2. #2 JennieL
    November 21, 2009

    put pressure on a scientific journal to remove its editor because they didn’t like the papers it was publishing.

    In early 2008 it was discovered that a couple of creationists had gotten an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Proteomics. Members of the scientific community called for an explanation and put pressure on the editor to retract the article. Several expressed the view that Proteomics should no longer be considered a respectable journal due to its failure to weed out creationist papers.

    Clearly this is appalling behaviour on the part of the EVILutionists and demonstrates a conspiracy to keep skeptical views out of the literature!

    There are obviously scientific conspiracies EVERYWHERE.

    On a more serious note – I wonder if this isn’t going to be bad even for the denialists. They’ve now made the entire scientific community aware of the tactics they’re willing to use. What they’ve managed to find this time is hardly scandalous (I’d be pretty surprised if my own correspondence came off so well under this kind of attack), and due to the chilling effect this will have on open discussion between colleagues, any future stuff they dig up will be even more anodyne.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    November 21, 2009

    I note that there seems to have been no responses to my [post yesterday](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2091244) that answer my questions about what scientific fraud it is exactly that has been perpetrated.

    I note too that Anthony Watts [attempts to answer such a question](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/) himself, by mirroring Climate Audit (which I haven’t so far been able to see), but he seems oblivious to the mathematical nonsense that ‘Jean S’ produced as a result. Jean S’ answer is to omit the last several decades of instrumental data (which do not suffer from the ‘divergence problem’) to show that a smoothed line “point[s] downwards”…

    So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

    All well and good, but we know from an amazing invention – the thermometer, of which there are hundreds of millions around the world – that temperatures actually have been increasing since the 1960s, and not decreasing. Jean S/Watts seem to be ignoring the fact that the divergence is a recognised systematic bias, and that the addition of acknowledged correct data in order to extend a recognised, smoothed trend is not hocus-pocus – and anyone who read and understood the original methodology would have known this.

    In fact, Jean S/Watts could have made the same spurious analysis years earlier without any reading of the stolen emails, if they had bothered to actually read and understand the original methodology – as others have pointed out, it is not as if the data were actually ‘hidden’. The fact that they did not, and could not, do so indicates to me that they have no familiarity with the valid processes employed to reproduce faithfully the temperature trend over the last thousand years – even if such requires a composite approach.

    Jean S/Watts are playing cute (at the least) with a problem of smoothing that often occurs at the termini of data-series, a la [Jon Jenkins and the abuse of high-order polynomials](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_32.php). Their strategy might remove the last several decades of warming from a graph, but this does not remove this warming from the 20th century record, nor from the continuous temperature record over the more than the last century and a half. And it does not remove the blade from the hockeystick – no matter how they might wish it otherwise.

    If Jean S/Watts are trying to imput that there is no warming trend since the Industrial Revolution, but rather, there is but a simple collection of peaks and troughs in ‘normal’ temperature noise, then they need to go about carefully explaining why such huge variations in temperature are not recorded in the geophysical, the biological, and the anthropological records over the last several millenia. From a purely biological perspective I can say that the rate of contemporary temperature change is not reflected in the phenological, physiological, distributional, genetic, and other biological-parameter records for the period spanning last several centuries to the last several millenia – or more.

    Of course, it might be that biologists have “hidden” the evidence that would actually refute the rather large body of literature that actually shows that warming has impacted on so many biological parameters. Good luck finding that conspiracy Anthony, Jean S, Steve, and co…

    If there is anything hidden at all, it is the evidence that Watts and his Denialati compadres actually have a clue about the science, and how it is (validly) conducted.

  4. #4 spangled drongo
    November 22, 2009

    Lernard Bernard,

    “the rather large body of literature that actually shows that warming has impacted on so many biological parameters.”

    That would be those mountain pygmy possums and lemuroids, no doubt.
    Could it run to polar bears too, do you think?

    CON artist,
    Don’t even know that hockey stick now?
    How the mighty have fallen.

  5. #5 Douglas Watts
    November 22, 2009

    Illegally hacking files and then finding nothing is kind the desperation play when you know you got nothing.

    If the bozos wanted to … like … disprove the fact of anthropogenic climate change they could always gather the requisite evidence, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and collect their Nobel Prize.

    [crickets]

  6. #6 WotWot
    November 22, 2009

    A group of scientists have deliberately set out to manipulate data, hoodwink funding bodies and politicians…< ?i>
    Dave Andrews @ 168

    Publicly name these individual scientists whom you so boldly claim are avaricious frauds. Presumably, being the reasonable rational person that you are, you would not make that claim without very good evidence that you have complete confidence in.

    Put your money and (what is left of your) reputation where your mouth is. Or be prepared to be justifiably dismissed as a libellous scumbag, full of arrogance and bad manners, and devoid of any scientific or ethical credibility at all.

  7. #7 WotWot
    November 22, 2009

    Er, my last post seemed to have been prematurely terminated. Try again.

    A group of scientists have deliberately set out to manipulate data, hoodwink funding bodies and politicians…

    Publicly name these individual scientists whom you so boldly claim are avaricious frauds, and let your ‘evidence’ be tested in a proper court, in defamation proceedings.

    Put up. Or be prepared to be justifiably called a libellous scumbag, devoid of any scientific and ethical credibility at all.

  8. #8 cohenite
    November 22, 2009

    That’s rather a lot of tripe BJ; the proxies don’t have to have smoothing problems at their termini because there is sufficient overlap of samples, if one can avoid Briffa like cherry-picking, to avoid termini; the proxies were dropped after 1960 because they wouldn’t play ball and the issue with that is, if the proxies are sufficient for pre-1960 temperature conclusions why aren’t they good enough for the post-1960 temperature conclusions?

    Noone is denying that there has been a temperature increase since about 1850; solar and PDO explain that. As for this extraordinary statement:

    “why such huge variations in temperature are not recorded in the geophysical, the biological, and the anthropological records over the last several millenia. From a purely biological perspective I can say that the rate of contemporary temperature change is not reflected in the phenological, physiological, distributional, genetic, and other biological-parameter records for the period spanning last several centuries to the last several millenia – or more.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449527.ece

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

  9. #9 guthrie
    November 22, 2009

    Cohenite – you just burped up a load of tripe right there – solar can’t explain the last 30 years of warming, and the PDO doesn’t contribute to long term trends.

  10. #10 Mark Byrne
    November 22, 2009

    >*if the proxies are sufficient for pre-1960 temperature conclusions why aren’t they good enough for the post-1960 temperature conclusions?*

    Because humans have disrupted the environment in multiple ways? In ways which increased terrifically post WWII(Global dimming, CO2 concentrations, other pollutions, biodiversity loss, ecosystem impoverishment.) Perhaps this affect proxies at the same time temperature affect proxies?

    Just my speculation mind you. Any one else know the answer? Perhaps there are papers on such things? Perhaps competent scientist know of these? Have you surveyed the literature Anthony?

  11. #11 cohenite
    November 22, 2009

    The idea that the PDO cycle is trend neutral has been subject to reasonable critique;

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf

    The role of cloud cover and consequent increase in incipient SW radiation is put forward as a causal mechanism;

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf

  12. #12 Michael
    November 22, 2009

    Anthony, you still haven’t done your homework have you?

    What is it now, 4 months??

  13. #13 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    >*The idea that the PDO cycle is trend neutral has been subject to reasonable critique*

    Which Anthony Cohenite Cox demonstrates by linking to two papers about ENSO.

    I love it when Cox tries to talk all sciency.

  14. #14 Jeremy C
    November 22, 2009

    Me too Janet. Reading Cohenite’s really cool, sexy sciency stuff makes me want to be a scientist like him.

  15. #15 cohenite
    November 22, 2009
  16. #16 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    There you Coxy, your google does work!

    It just would have sounded so much smoother if you had used a PDO paper first up when you talked so sciency.

  17. #17 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Coxy, now please explain for non sciency people like me, where does this last paper critique *”the idea that the PDO cycle is trend neutral”* and what were the author’s conclusion about that that critique?

  18. #18 Jeremy C
    November 22, 2009

    Janet,

    It would just thrill me to be able to explain sciency things like Cohenite. The sexy language makes me….. feel….so…… empowered and adequate.

    I never knew that rational thought began and ended with pasting urls or large chunks as answers to problems and questions. I had always thought you had to explain your ideas and back them up right up to the data and physical explanations and then answer people questions people put to you without resorting to pasting.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    November 22, 2009

    Cohenite.

    Sometimes I wonder if you ever put your brain into gear before you engage your mouth.

    Read my previous post carefully. You’ll find that my remark about the divergence problem of the proxies is a different matter to the use of a smoothing process to illustrate the temperature trend – as indeed anyone who actually interprets the reconstruction and the curve-fitting should understand.

    Do not pass go; do not collect one hundred dollars.

    And with respect to your two links as a response to my “extraordinary” statement… Whatever else you believe that they might imply, you need to understand that it is trivially obvious that past cold (and warm) events have occurred: that they occurred at planetary scales rather than regional scales, and at rates of change and of magnitudes of change similar to that set in train by anthropogenic emissions is another thing entirely, and one that you might have rather a more difficult time accumulating evidence for – assuming of course that you knew how to do so in the first place.

    You’re still thinking like a divorce lawyer on an ideological mission to present a personally-favoured scenario, rather than the most parsimonious and scientifically supported inference.

    Go straight to jail.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo.

    That would be those mountain pygmy possums and lemuroids, no doubt. Could it run to polar bears too, do you think?

    If that’s the limit of material to which you are able to refer, you need to do quite a bit more reading.

    Why, oh why is it that these Denialists are all so bonsai-ed in their scientific exposure?!

    Trying to induce them to actually employ some scientific technique to their learning really is like trying to wring blood from a stone – the only difference is that one may eventually squeeze out some blood…

  21. #21 spangled drongo
    November 22, 2009

    Bernard old chap,
    Get real for once in your life!
    99.9% of the impacts on those biological parameters is due to habitat loss and other factors.
    Anything at all that is claimed to be attributable to AGW and more specifically ACO2e is absolute guesswork.

  22. #22 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Another evidence free comment from Drongo.

    How did you calculate the 99.9% figure Drongo? Or did you (as seems too usual for denialist) substitute your gut feeling for facts, and just make something up?

  23. #23 spangled drongo
    November 22, 2009

    Janet,

    Please prove me wrong.
    I know Bernard can’t.

  24. #24 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo,

    I’ll take that as confirmation that you just made that stuff up (a trait common to your ilk). Prove me wrong. Alternatively go and put your pants out before you get burnt.

  25. #25 Mark Byrne
    November 22, 2009
  26. #26 Mark Byrne
    November 22, 2009
  27. #28 spangled drongo
    November 22, 2009

    Wow! Janet,

    Your evidence really is overwhelming!

  28. #29 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Bernard,

    Do you think Drongo is Tim Curtin?

    I remember that “prove me wrong” shtick regarding Arrhenius and Malthsand , and his familiarity with Bernard is leads me to that inclination. Plus the made up BS is a constant.

  29. #30 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo, it appears that I was correct, and someone has just pulled your pants down for you.

  30. #31 Bernard J.
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo.

    It seems that you don’t know anything. Start [counting](http://tiny.cc/eCkql).

    Oh, and newsflash… I and the rest of the world’s ecologists actually [understand the relative contributions of various ecological stressors](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/the_denial_industrial_complex.php#comment-932722), and you will find that such is taken into account in most analyses. Your statement that:

    99.9% of the impacts on those biological parameters is due to habitat loss and other factors.

    is a strawman, because when ecologists speak of global warming impacts they are referring to the changes arising from, in addition to, or synergistic with, the other causes of ecological damage.

    Still, as you seem to know better, and as you obviously have no access to Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, or similar, use the Google Scholar trawl above and show where you are right and the ecologists of the world are wrong. As you seem to think that only one in a thousand of the “impacts on those biological parameters” is due to climate change, I reckon that an annotated bibliography of, say, ten thousand of the “about 177,000″ references related to the impacts of climate change just on ‘phenology’ should do it in terms of statistical reliability.

    Of course, there will be doublings up within the search list, in terms of references that cover the same examples, or which are links to the same papers, or which are reviews of other papers, so your refuation might have to cover somewhat more than ten thousand items. You’re going to be a busy boy wading through so many references in order to disprove that climate change does not have numerous examples of impact upon phenology.

    Oh, and once you’ve finished that, we can then test for research that looks at the impact of climate change on ecophysiology, on distribution, and any number of other of those the biological parameters of which you are so dismissive.

    Hop to it Drongo. I’m not going to do your hard yards for you, but I’m happy to help you figure out where you’re going wrong. Of course, such an endeavour is no different to attempting to shoot fish in a barrel, so it’s not exactly a strain on my part.

    Perhaps you can use [cohenite’s “trick”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1669230) and ask some of the folk at Marohasy’s, or at another pseudoscientific cesspit, to help you in your task.

  31. #32 spangled drongo
    November 22, 2009

    Mark,

    I said proof!

    These guys are the simply the fiddlers we are talking about.

    D’you seriously think that with the slight current warming that is less than we experienced in the last millenia that species can’t cope?

  32. #34 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo tries to cover himself with:

    >”I said proof!”

    I would have thought overwhelming evidence would have been sufficient, especially considering the evidence is counter something you just made up!

    Drongo (Tim Curtin?), can you provide me with proof that your not a fraud?

    I think you are a fraud, I think 99.9% of people reading your BS here will conclude you are a fraud. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of what you say is total BS. Prove me wrong.

  33. #35 Bernard J.
    November 22, 2009

    D’you seriously think that with the slight current warming that is less than we experienced in the last millenia that species can’t cope?

    Yes.

    Take Tasmania’s kelp forests as an example, seeing that you serendipitously refer to “the… current”. The warmer ocean currents that have been sweeping Tasmania’s east coast for a number of years now made it much more conducive for non-indigenous sea urchins to establish. These sea urchins are hammering the kelp, and are placing the forests at significant risk. This in turn places at risk the benthic organisms that rely on the kelp, and even some of the non-benthic species are threatened, as they have nowhere else to where they can migrate.

    It matters not whether the warm currents are presently directly a consequence of human-induced climate change, or not. If the warmth is not presently directly attributable to AGW, it soon will be, and it will only require a permanent increase of a few degrees to completely alter the Tasmanian sub-littoral ecology, and to wipe out many species in the process.

    As to whether “the slight current warming that is less than we experienced in the last millenia”, I really would like to see you demonstrate that there have been other global warming events over the last 1000 years, of the rate and magnitude that is occurring now. Such an idea is inconsistent with the distribution, and indeed with the very existence, of many species even if they haven’t been significantly impacted by human activity – but hey, if you can explain that away, go for it.

    So, to repeat, I do think that the present warming is a threat to species, and the Tasmanian kelp example is but one. There are countless others, but you seem incapable of finding out for yourself what they are.

    As you are an Australian, you might ask a mountain pygmy possum what they would think of a decade or two of sustained warmth over their winter hibernation range. Or consider the impact that a slight warming will have on the fire frequency in eastern seaboard sclerophyll forests, and how this in turn threatens the Gondwanan nothofagus remnants sitting atop the highest peaks of the Great Dividing Range.

    I could list many further examples, but I despise the intellectual laziness – and indeed the intellectual dishonesty – that underpins the refusal of those, such as yourself, who can’t do their own fact-finding.

    So get off your arse and find out for yourself why the bilge that you spray is exactly that. And if you insist on maintaining your current claims, then start providing the evidence that proves all of the accepted ecological work wrong.

  34. #36 spangled drongo
    November 22, 2009

    Oh Mark,

    And to think I used to think you were smart…

    Did you check with C.O.N. to see if that was the right stick?

  35. #37 Mark Byrne
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo, no reply to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2094222), and a striking lack of any supporting evidence of any kind. Yet such a lot of bluster; (to hide the absence of a well deserved apology to Bernard?).

    I think most reader can make their own judgements here.

  36. #38 Janet Akerman
    November 22, 2009

    Drongo,

    You’ve provide zero evidence that you have “smart[s]” you seek in others. Instead this threat provide multiple evidence of the opposite of this quality in your posts.

  37. #39 Chris O'Neill
    November 23, 2009

    Brains of a drongo:

    Don’t even know that hockey stick now?

    I’m just trying to find out what you mean by “the” hockey stick because there is no such thing as “the” hockey stick. The IPCC,for example, uses ten hockey sticks in their report, the vast majority of which use up-to-date methods which stand up to scrutiny.

  38. #40 Dave Andrews
    November 23, 2009

    Chris O’Neill, #219

    Are you for real? Mann’s hockey stick was plastered all over the TAR, all over the media, all over popular books about AGW (as it was then called) and all over Gore’s film. Why are you trying to airbrush so much out of recent history?

    Moreover, the Wegman report clearly showed that most prominent climate scientists worked in a symbiotic relationship with one another. No one ever tried to reproduce Mann’s results they just accepted it as ‘truth’ for their own papers.

    These papers were then used as the basis for AR4. So they fall a long way short of “standing up to scrutiny”

  39. #41 Ian Forrester
    November 23, 2009

    Dave Andrews still believes Wegman is an honest and competent statistician. He has shown himself to be neither. He is a card carrying member of the AGW denier cabal.

    Check out the letter he signed (along with many other AGW deniers) supporting statistics which would have had a red pencil drawn through it if had been handed in by any high school or first year college student.

  40. #42 Ray
    November 23, 2009

    For years I have watched the environmental community malign reality, exagerate, cheat, and proclaim doom, its refreshing to see them get caught at this obscene game in such a monumental fashion.

  41. #43 Janet Akerman
    November 23, 2009
  42. #44 Chris O'Neill
    November 23, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    Mann’s hockey stick was plastered all over the TAR,

    So you’re saying drongo meant Mann’s original, 1998/9 hockey stick. In that case I’m not defending all the methods in MBH98/99 but that is irrelevant because hockeysticks made now such as most of the hockeysticks in AR4 are made with provably correct methods.

    Why are you trying to airbrush so much out of recent history?

    I could ask you the same question. Why are you trying to airbrush the hockey sticks in AR4 (which ARE recent history) out of history?

    No one ever tried to reproduce Mann’s results they just accepted it as ‘truth’ for their own papers. These papers were then used as the basis for AR4.

    Utter crap. The other hockey sticks in AR4 are not produced using Mann’s MBH98 methods.

  43. #45 Dave Andrews
    November 24, 2009

    Chris O’Neill,

    “provably correct methods.”

    Oh, come on, how are they ‘provably correct’?

  44. #46 Chris O'Neill
    November 24, 2009

    how are they ‘provably correct’?

    Regularized expectation maximization is provably correct as opposed to say, uncentered principal components analysis.

  45. #47 Gaz
    November 25, 2009

    Janet Akerman:

    Do you think Drongo is Tim Curtin?

    Good question. Let’s see:

    Hey Spangled Drongo, what’s the difference between a first derivative and a proportional rate of change?

    *Snicker*

  46. #48 Janet Akerman
    November 25, 2009
  47. #49 MrPete
    January 2, 2010

    You boys ‘n girls sure have fun making fun of people…, bowing to the evidence of recent warming…, and the computer simulations built on non-physical parameterizations.

    There’s plenty of reason for more caution than you’re exhibiting.

    At the very least, why forget so easily that IPCC scientists felt most climate change topics were worthy of worst-possible level of scientific uncertainty? (LOSU)?

    Even more interesting to me as a matter of evidential curiosity: why do we ignore the fact that treelines were much higher/northern/etc in the last millenium? That’s pretty strong evidence for significantly different climate, that ecosystems managed to handle OK.

    Ah well, it was fun stopping by to see your continued flame-comments.

    Happy New Year, all.

  48. #50 dhogaza
    January 3, 2010

    Even more interesting to me as a matter of evidential curiosity: why do we ignore the fact that treelines were much higher/northern/etc in the last millenium? That’s pretty strong evidence for significantly different climate, that ecosystems managed to handle OK.

    1. Rate of change is significant.

    2. Treelines aren’t ecosystems, and the fact that they move north/higher tells us nothing about the ecosystem response as a whole.

    3. We’re seeing ecosystem responses at a rate now that worry biologists. We’re seeing a collapse of woodland bird species in the Netherlands, for instance, which appears to be due to the loss of synchronicity between insect hatch dates and migration/nesting timing. We’re seeing this kind of disruption over much of the northern hemisphere, though the dutch study is the first/only one of its kind thus far that I’m aware of.

  49. #51 luminous beauty
    January 3, 2010

    MrPete,

    Tree lines have been retreating since the Holocene Optimum. So what?

    All the parameterizations of models are empirically bound approximations of known physical processes, and the models aren’t built on them.

Current ye@r *