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 Mark Byrne
November 19, 2009

>”Australia will go broke [...] if politicians ignore basic science on climate change…”

Plimer would be correct if this is where he started and stopped.
#2 Mark Byrne
November 19, 2009

[Plimer Nov 12th](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php)
>*”When you look at my critics — they are people who are rent seekers. They have everything to gain by continuing the process of frightening people witless, by following the party line, …”*

Plimer Nov 19th:

>*Australia will go broke and become the laughing stock of the world if politicians ignore basic science on climate change*.
#3 Mark Byrne
November 19, 2009

Oh yes, did someone say [rent seekers?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2071220)
#4 Vince Whirlwind
November 19, 2009

Plimer is indeed qualified to tell us all about being the “laughing stock of the world”, although he may not have quite realised it yet…

Still no correction(s) from him for the multiple errors contained in his populist book on Climate Change.
#5 Nils Ross
November 19, 2009

As has been pointed out, the quote: “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,” is entirely correct. Just not in the way AAP–and Plimer–presumably intended it.
#6 DavidK
November 19, 2009

Let’s face it, Plimer’s having one of his senior moments.
He really does need to look in the mirror if he’s going to make pronouncements such as those on his way to the bank.
#7 DavidK
November 19, 2009

Hmmm, wait a mo. Ok, it’s easy to find fault with Plimer’s rants. What about the subject of Tim’s post? What game is AAP playing by reporting before the event? For all we know Plimer has had a revelation, seen the light and will admit he was wrong all along.
#8 el gordo
November 19, 2009

While reading a post by Gavin on Plimer over at RealClimate (24 Aug 2009) he made the point that ‘the Medieval era was far regional in nature, and does not approach the truly global scale of warmth in recent decades.’

The MWP is more complex than many would like to believe. For example, the Thames was said to be frozen for five weeks in 998 AD and 14 weeks in1063, again in 1142 and 1149. It is hard to reconcile that the MWP was warmer than now.

Perhaps the hydrology of the Thames has been altered, in such a way that it can no longer freeze over. Still, you would have to wonder about the proxy data which indicates it was as warm if not warmer than now.
#9 Dirk Hartog
November 19, 2009

It is fitting that on the day that Plimer is giving this lecture in Adelaide, the city has just set an all time record for the hottest November maximum, 43C.

I hope that the air conditioning breaks down in the lecture theatre

Other centers in South Australia were as hot as 46C (115F).
#10 Donald Oats
November 19, 2009

Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are doing immense damage to the public’s view of the ethical behaviour of scientists in general. The Plimer and Carter approach is to say that since scientists receive government grants (not for their own salary, by the way), they must be biased to the party-line. In an indirect way, Plimer and Carter use this as a rationale for why their kind of sceptic generally doesn’t get published in the appropriate academic literature. Of course, firstly they need to actually submit draft articles…if they want to be published in the field.

Anyway, some rural reporters have commented on just how deeply suspicious rural folk are of the major scientific institutions, and the scientists by extension. And of course, the IPPC too. It is very frustrating given just how much scientific research in Australia goes into problems of direct relevance to ensuring profitability of farmers.

The Plimer and Carter caricture of scientists and their motivations is indefensible. While Plimer might be capable of remaining independent yet picking up very nicely paying mining company directorships, at least in his own mind, perhaps he should consider that other scientists might be primarily motivated by curiosity – not cash!
#11 Connor
November 19, 2009

Donald Oats – The sad thing is (as Pure Poison pointed out the other) people like Carter receive funding from the ARC too, but commentators like Bolt don’t bother telling their readers that because it doesn’t fit in with the conspiracy theory.
#12 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#13 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#14 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#15 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#16 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#17 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#18 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#19 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#20 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#21 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#22 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#23 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#24 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#25 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#26 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#27 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#28 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#29 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#30 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#31 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#32 Nick Barnes
November 19, 2009

el gordo: the hydrology has certainly changed, but so has the climate. Even puddles rarely freeze in southern England these days. Certainly they don’t remain frozen for weeks.
#33 Nick
November 19, 2009

From Plimer via the AAP link:

“Science does not operate by consensus,bullying,authority,government decree,fads or fashion,personal beliefs or vested interests.”

Clearly,he’s no scientist!

“It’s no secret,the more energy a country uses,the richer it becomes.”

Well,that settles it..
#34 Andrew Dodds
November 19, 2009

Regarding the Thames freezing over -

Generally, by the time you reach London, the only way it can freeze is by floes coming from further upstream and getting stuck together at a bridge, then freezing over. Harder since the original narrow arched London Bridge was bought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge

Plus I suspect that London, being a large city in a shallow valley, has a pretty major UHI which would mitigate against the river freezing. Even so, the idea of a multi-week freeze of any kind in lowland England just seems laughable now; you might just about get multi week frosts in the higher parts of the peak district.

Last winter was regarded as ‘freakishly cold’ because we had real snow (several inches!) for a whole week. And one night my garden weather station recorded -8C.
#35 Gaz
November 19, 2009

It’s all a bit ironic given that Essington Lewis was one of the biggest and beat rent-seekers in Australia’s entire history, and that’s saying something.
#36 Steve Chamberlain
November 19, 2009

DavidK (7): “What about the subject of Tim’s post? What game is AAP playing by reporting before the event?”

Good question. Interestingly (or not) the AAP syndicated piece that Tim linked to was released by news.com.au, which is part of the Murdoch empire. Yes, the global “news” outlet that brought you The ‘Strayan, The Herald Sun and The Times, among others. The independent, free-thinking transnational that pays wages to Bolta, Planet Janet et al. Maybe they just got over-excited and ejacul… released the article prematurely.

Sort of connected to this (just) is that a tro… someone who used to post at this blog called janama turned up at crikey recently on a thread there about the Bolta (which must be sheer coinicidence, surely…). Suffice to say janama is pretty much the same sort of tr… misguided soul as previous, the only thing that seems to have changed is his willingness to abuse people he’s never met (he calls Tim Lambert a very arrogant prick, not that Tim would give a flying f**k I don’t suppose).
#37 Bernard J.
November 19, 2009

It’s a real shame that Media Watch has recessed for the austral summer. They would have loved the AAP prescience story…
#38 Paul UK
November 19, 2009

elgordo
>For example, the Thames was said to be frozen for five weeks in 998 AD and 14 weeks in1063, again in 1142 and 1149. It is hard to reconcile that the MWP was warmer than now.

“…the Thames was said to be frozen for five weeks…”

Ah yes, that sounds very scientific.

It feels warmer now, but a ‘feeling’ isn’t science either.
It is common knowledge that climate changes, that has never been the issue, despite deniers rantings and ravings.
#39 Donald Oats
November 19, 2009

Re #11 Connor – I agree with you mate, it is sad. My opinion of these turkeys is that no matter how brilliant they are or were at their ~~mining consulting~~ geology, it is despicable behaviour to publish a book on this basis:

By contrast to what Barry Brooks says, this book is not a book of science. It’s a book for the public who have felt quite disenfranchised and quite helpless that they have scientists talking down to them and they know there’s a smell, they can’t quite work out where the smell’s from, but they know there’s a smell, and this book is to give the public some information such that they can say, I think we’re being led astray.

And then to use the book as a platform for attacking science that has made it to the best academic journals, and that has survived testing by other scientists.

By doing this Plimer sidesteps the entire process by which science is conducted. Read the first sentence of the Lateline quote again – “It is not a book of science.” Astonishing!
#40 TrueSceptic
November 19, 2009

Isn’t is simply that the AAP received a press release in advance from Plimer or the lecture organisers and were a little careless in how it was reported?
#41 sod
November 19, 2009

sloppy reporting.

this article in the [WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle) is even worse.

the most important part of the article gets reported in a sidenote. and then forgotten for conclusions.

Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre’s work as “demonstrably biased” because it uses “a narrower area and range of sample sites.” He says he and his colleagues have now built a new chronology using still more data. Here, as in similar graphs by other researchers, the spike soars once again. Mr. McIntyre’s “work has little implication for our published work or any other work that uses it,” Mr. Briffa concludes.

right wing pundits reporting. sigh.
#42 Hank Roberts
November 19, 2009

Well, this is refreshing honesty, although it’s the most indirect way I’ve ever seen of saying “The dog ate my homework!”

“Mr. McIntyre declares no interest in debunking The Theory in toto, nor in discouraging efficient energy use. His blog will disappoint those seeking anything more political than technical analyses.” — WSJ

Riiiiiight.
#43 dhogaza
November 19, 2009

His blog will disappoint those seeking anything more political than technical analyses.

Sort of like the WSJ editorial page itself, that bastion of unbiased, objective, opinion without a trace of ideological, politically-driven analysis …
#44 Arie Brand
November 19, 2009

Last night I saw Tony Abbott being questioned on Lateline. He didn’t want to set himself up as an expert on climate change, he said, but, “for a politician” he knew enough about it. Subsequently he came up with the most hackneyed of denialist arguments (such as why has there been no linear increase in the temperature over the last ten years in spite of the fact that CO2-emissions have continuously grown).

What the hell does that mean: “for a politician” he knows enough about it? This is a guy who wishes to participate in deciding the fate of this country and then turns out to have the most shallow knowledge of one of the most important issues facing it. He escaped answering the other Tony’s question whether he had read the IPCC reports. I bet he hasn’t.
#45 Jimmy Nightingale
November 19, 2009

Re #24.

Shorter Tony Abbott: I’ll cling to my own views regardless of what the science says.

On a separate point of note, it is amusing that all the ‘it’s been cooling since 1998′ brigade suddenly appear to understand the difference between weather and climate. The spate of temperature records being broken for November is just weather, true, but it is good to see the cogs starting to churn over with a couple of the denialist mob I’ve been arguing with for years.

Yes, in any given year you would expect to see the occasional high/low record being broken. But we’re seeing some November records being smashed by 4-5 degrees and first recorded November heatwaves in areas. I think it may be starting to sink in that perhaps something out of the ordinary is happening. On top of the records from earlier this year with the Black Saturday weather conditions and against a solar minimum (and nothing exceptional regarding El Nino), it’s good to see some doubt creeping in.

And bad. I wish the science was wrong as this is giving us a taste of the future and what may be normal weather in another 40-50 years. It makes me wonder how long it will be until one of our state capitals posts a 50 degree day. And if the likes of Plimer, Carter, Bolt etc will still be pushing their ideological view. The way things are going, it may even happen in their lifetimes.
#46 el gordo
November 19, 2009

Paul UK: I am a proud denier of AGW. I come here to prepare for the political battle ahead, unlike the mad monk who didn’t even bother to prepare for an interview with Tony Jones.

The source I used is ‘Agricultural Records AD 220 -1977′ by J.M. Stratton and Jack Houghton-Brown. Published by John Baker in 1978.

If comments in Plimer’s book are flawed, it should be exposed.
#47 DavidK
November 19, 2009

Steve (16) What you said – makes sense. Premature ejaculation LOL.

As to janama, isn’t he one of ~~Jen’s Jackals~~ the contributors over at her blog site. Apparently she’s gone walk-about leaving the ~~jackals~~ misguided souls to hound other sites.
#48 DavidK
November 19, 2009

If comments in Plimer’s book are flawed, it should be exposed.

Maybe you can help spread the message
#49 dhogaza
November 19, 2009

Paul UK: I am a proud denier of AGW. I come here to prepare for the political battle ahead, unlike the mad monk who didn’t even bother to prepare for an interview with Tony Jones.

El Gordo’s refreshing, at least, in his honesty regarding his denialism. Science has nothing to do with it.
#50 Janet Akerman
November 19, 2009

dhogaza, Agreed. And he saves us some of the depressing work of trawling through some of the denialist sites.
#51 WotWot
November 19, 2009

Saw that Abbott interview (a rarity, as I usually throw the TV out the window when his mug appears on it). I think he did the science based community a favour. He came across as a slippery dishonest hack. You know, his usual self. He convinced nobody, and was just preaching to his own constituency. I thought the interviewer (Tony Jones) did a pretty good job exposing him. I nearly cried with laughter when Abbott started blathering on about how AGW proponents had a theological flavour to their arguments. (For those not versed in Oz politics, Abbott is a failed Jesuit seminarian, and a hard right wing authoritarian Catholic head kicker. I was bought up a Catholic, so I know his type well. They are, as Lewis Black so eloquently put it, 10 hairs away from being a gibbering baboon. I have nothing but contempt for Abbott.)

Donald Oats @ 10

I would not be too worried about that. I come from National Party farming stock and know them quite well, and I can tell you that whatever they say in public, in private they are preparing for the worst. Their public comments are not a reliable guide, as that community like to stick together and not rock their local social boat. When Barnaby Joyce works the crowd and extracts one or two comments apparently supporting him, that don’t mean shit. They actually work quite closely with scientists, and have done for decades. Don’t be misled by their conservative social views, they understand the value of hard science, at least as far as agricultural science goes. They have seen the massive benefits it can bring to their bottom line.

(BTW, Barnaby Joyce, the National Party leader does not accurately reflect the views of the NP’s constituency. Many of them regard him as being too loopy even for the Nationals, who have actually always been largely pragmatic agrarian socialists.)

These folk are the least of your concerns. It is the Abbotts and (Nick) Minchins and Joyces of this world, the city dwelling ultra conservatives ideologues, that you gotta be worried about.
#52 Lank
November 19, 2009

Looks like the crooks at the Hadley CRU have finally been exposed….http://wattsupwiththat.com/.. and about time too.
#53 dhogaza
November 19, 2009

Crooks? Oh yes? Have fun with that one, Lank.

Now, let’s imagine you’re right for a moment …

Physics doesn’t change just because someone is (in your mind) a crook. They could be corrupt as hell, and CO2 would still cause warming.
#54 Jimmy Nightingale
November 19, 2009

Re #33.

CO2 is part of the conspiracy too.

I’m surprised Lank doesn’t get a sore neck keeping watch for the black helicopters.
#55 James Haughton
November 19, 2009

Lank, I may be hopelessly naive, but I can’t see anything particularly “exposing” in the emails posted on wuwt, Lucia, etc so far. It’s all a lot of shop talk. Some people get hot under the collar at the public abuse they cop from McIntyre. There’s a reference to a “trick”; people who work with analysing complex systems and data talk about technical tricks, hacks, kludges, etc all the time. Big deal.

Stuff about frustrating FOI requests is disturbing, but falls under the category “wrong, but human”. If I was constantly publicly maligned by McIntyre, as many climate scientists are, I’d be disinclined to cooperate with him too no matter what my legal obligations might be (or what McIntyre might claim them to be). Showing that Hadley scientists are petty humans like the rest of us in no way invalidates their work.
#56 Marion Delgado
November 19, 2009

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.

The problem is, this is exactly right. Is it unintentional irony or is he simply rubbing it in that his audience is immune to hints?
#57 el gordo
November 19, 2009

Hank: I had a quick look and became curious. Why did Keith have to ‘hide the decline’?

Phil Jones couldn’t have meant temperatures, because in 1999 we had just come off the back of that monstrous El Nino.

These emails might be fake, remember Godwin.
#58 Arie Brand
November 19, 2009

Re. no. 31 “He convinced nobody” Yes, but the trouble is that the nobodies he didn’t convince have no input in the decisions that have to be made – he has.
#59 Jon
November 19, 2009

I also saw the Abbott interview on Lateline last night. Embarrassing stuff. On the one hand, claims to be sceptical and then says he hasn’t studied the science closely. Jones completely ripped him apart when he referred to the Hadley Centre assessment, compared to what Abbott said which was straight out of Plimer’s book.

One wonders what has happened to the Liberal party. Why are so many of them willing to listen to a few discretted climate sceptic hacks over the overwhelming scientific evidence. This is particularly remarkable given that even Howard at the last election adopted an emission scheme.

Turnbull really needs to show some leadership. It would be embarrassing for a major party to vote against the deal that is likely to be struck between McFarlane and Wong (which is already a huge compromise to big carbon emitters). It would look like an increasingly confused and out of touch party.
#60 Donald Oats
November 19, 2009

Thanks WotWot (#31), that’s a bit more reassuring. However, farmers are causing themselves trouble if they don’t speak up a bit and say “Hang on, Joycie, but what about all that help given to our farming sector from those same scientists you are saying are in some worldwide conspiracy and are lying about AGW, climate change, etc? What changed their minds about helping farmers?”

By staying too silent they risk utter alienation from city folk who only see the public nodding heads whenever Carter, Plimer, or Joyce speak. Sooner or later someone needs to speak out when a news camera is there to record it.

BTW, my broader family still has farming in it, NE Vic. One part of the family pulled up stumps on their farming in NSW in the early 80′s, a bit after the 82/83 drought (I was there then and it wasn’t a picnic but the beer was cold!), and then the slowly increasing salinity in the water and ground. Turns out it was good timing.
#61 Marion Delgado
November 19, 2009

TrueSceptic:

Of course, that’s exactly what it is, but it’s a very sloppy Journalism 101 thing to do, is all.

If Joe Romm had done it, it would be a hanging offense, of course.
#62 Lank
November 19, 2009

Hadley CRU news update…If you can’t trust the scientists who propose AGW warming, how can you trust their ‘science’…Crooks? Oh yes! #33.

“These emails might be fake, remember Godwin” #37 Oh yes blame poor Godwin. I suspect he’s at it again! Hadley must be full of Godwins.

James ‘I may be hopelessly naive’ Haughton cant see anything wrong here. Do you do this kind of research James?…”I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
#63 dhogaza
November 20, 2009

Hadley CRU news update…If you can’t trust the scientists who propose AGW warming, how can you trust their ‘science’…Crooks? Oh yes! #33.

The physicists who established CO2′s role in warming are all dead, died before e-mail, died before the internet.
#64 dhogaza
November 20, 2009

James ‘I may be hopelessly naive’ Haughton cant see anything wrong here. Do you do this kind of research James?…

I see something wrong here: felony hacking of a server on the ‘net.

I hope the perps are caught, and spend a decade or so in jail.
#65 dhogaza
November 20, 2009

Oh, and Lank is jumping on the denialist bandwagon of quote-mining out of context to prove a point.

This will be a damaging episode, because while the far-right deems that writing a DRM breaker that isn’t necessarily used to break the law is, in itself, illegal … they’re already embracing these thieves as heroes and will do so forever.

Thousands of private e-mails provides thousands of opportunities for quote-mining, of course, totally distorting the thread of conversation or concern as understood in context.

It’s a huge victory for the anti-science, dark-age proponents. Truth doesn’t matter to them.
#66 Lank
November 20, 2009

Thats right dhogaza throw them in jail. That’ll silence anyone that disagrees with you. You clearly think its okay to ignore and distort science to promote self serving agenda…the ‘dhogaza school of science’ – you could open up a class at Long Bay!
#67 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

Lank, any opportunity to talk about anything but the science hey?

Please state exactly the crime (or at the very least dishost practice) you are accusing these “crooks” of? Back it up man. Put your mined quotes in context and lay it out, or is this just another ‘smear and run’ from a another turdphile?
#68 Lank
November 20, 2009

Heres a good update link for you dhogaza… http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

“Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous “hockey-stick” graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:….

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
#69 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

Lank, care you back yourself [as requested](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089330)?

You could start by explaining what the context and meaning of the quote you are pushing.

Alternatively, does the the title ‘smear and run turdphile’ sit well on your shoulders? I reckon its starting to describe your behaviour so far. Go on, prove me wrong Lank.
#70 Lank
November 20, 2009

Janet ‘turdphile’ Akerman has a good point. “AAP can report from the future” hardly ranks as science of the year.

The Deltoid dog pack sure likes to get stuck in to the likes of Plimer and Carter but when the tables are turned it seems like they have trouble backing up.
#71 cohenite
November 20, 2009

HadCrut is the science authority for all AGW legislation in bonny England; any person or group would have actionable grounds for legal redress for any provable disavantage, loss or otherwise quantifiable damages, including psychological distress, against the relevant government authorities who have enacted legislation relying on HadCrut information. Those government departments, in due course, would join HadCrut to the proceedings. Normally it is a defence avaiable to a government department against damage or loss caused to citizens through its negligence if there has been no malice; deception and obfuscation are examples of malice; so if the Jone’s adjustment epistle is real and Godwin hasn’t taken up employ with HadCrut then malice appears to be present.

On our own sunny shores, with the release of Penny’s beach and surf report, if it can be proved that she wilfully excluded rlevant information or misrepresented official [ie IPCC] prognostications, then there may be a bit of flotsam and jetsam malice floating around here too. Happy days.
#72 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

Well, this one is bringing out all the little ‘smear and run’ turdphiles.

Anothony Cox, care to backup your smears by stating the practice you are accusing these people of. As I challenged Lank, put the mined quotes in context and lay it out for us in plan speak.
#73 Lank
November 20, 2009

Well said Cohenite. I suspect that there will be a huge fallout from this in bonny England. I also expect resignations, finger pointing and excuses. Probably they will crucify the Godwin.

Penny and her advisors should be very afraid…

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong recently released a report claiming 250,000 Australian homes could be drowned by rising seas by 2100 due to global warming. This widely publicised report claimed warming could cause the seas to rise not by the 59cm that the IPCC model determined as the upper limit, but by 1.1m or perhaps even 1.90m. …alarmism at its best!
#74 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

Looks like smear and run Lank, just [keeps running](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089363) from my challenge.

Get used to your turdphile badge Lank.
#75 Michael
November 20, 2009

Here we go again, the merest scrap of information, true or not, produces a cacaphony of wild claims – fraud, cover-up, crooks – from the denialist echo-chamber.

They know only one tune and belt it out regardless of the situation.

Just like the recent Steve McIntyre inspired exercise in stupid behaviour. They read some claims they didn’t really understand which set them off into a frenzy. It was all so dim-witted that even McIntyre had to eventually try and hose them down a bit. It’s the dogs at night scenario – one dogs starts barking, which causes others to join in and soon every dog in the neigbourhood is barking madly and none of them know why.

This is ground-hog day. Quite appropriate for Anthony Cox to appear.
#76 el gordo
November 20, 2009

Steady on, Lank. There was genuine concern that this might be a green conspiracy to embarrass the sceptics in Copenhagen.

But no, the emails appear genuine. So this is the work of a disgruntled insider, a whistle blower.

If it spreads like a virus on the web, you would expect the msm to pick the story up and run with it. I won’t be holding my breath.
#77 el gordo
November 20, 2009

cohenite:

We really appreciate your comforting words, but how soon before we get to say ‘criminal negligence’?

Let’s hope it’s before the next election.
#78 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

el gordo,

[Same challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089370) to you, will you run away from it like Anthony Cox and Lank?
#79 cohenite
November 20, 2009

Janet, I think we know each other; weren’t you the blond haired women at the feminist meetings my second wife took me too? And what challenge are you talking about?
#80 WotWot
November 20, 2009

Donald @ 40

The action is taking place behind the scenes. Watch how the rural people vote, not what they say. The Nats still operate very much on the strong paternal leader type model, and they tend not to publicly contradict him, no matter how stupid he might be.

A very large chunk of Australia’s rural sector is on increasingly marginal land, and they are at the sharp receiving end of climate change effects. My recently retired father spent most of his professional scientific life working with them, from the farm level up to national leadership, and he says most of them are now quietly accepting that climate is changing and humans are at least substantially responsible.

The Nats are losing power all over the place, have been for a decade, in no small part because of extremist hysterical idiots like Joyce. He is not well respected among the broad rural community, they largely pay lip service only. Problem is they have not got any body much better.

I do not want to overstate the case, the Nats will be around for a while yet. But look at the hard electoral numbers, they are in serious sustained decline. As a party I doubt they will be in existence 3-4 elections from now.

Credit to Turnbull for trying to drag his party and the Coalition into the 21st century. Good luck to him.

And credit to your family for seeing the writing on the wall in the 80s. That was also when the big shift off the land occurred in my family, quite profitably too.

It’s the dogs at night scenario – one dogs starts barking, which causes others to join in and soon every dog in the neigbourhood is barking madly and none of them know why.

Sums it up nicely. Pavlov would have a field day with them.
#81 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

Anthony Cox, [this challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089367), read [back up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089360) the thread Anthony.
#82 Gaz
November 20, 2009

Marion Delgado –

..it’s a very sloppy Journalism 101 thing to do, is all.

It’s standard practice for speeches to be distributed under embargo. Why this was released early isn’t clear but it’s hardly something you can hang the journo for.

You can call it sloppy journalism I suppose not in the sense that, say, being [conned into thinking Monckton is a British MP](http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/carbon-trading-Alan-Jones-ETS-CPRS-Monckton-pd20091120-XXRRN?OpenDocument&src=sph) is sloppy journalism.
#83 Chris O'Neill
November 20, 2009

Jimmy Nightingale:

It makes me wonder how long it will be until one of our state capitals posts a 50 degree day

The temperature of heatwaves is determined by the summer temperature in central Australia which is probably warming about twice the rate of the world as a whole. The underlying rate of global warming is currently about 2 deg C per century so the average rate of increase of heatwave records would be about 4 deg C per century. Melbourne recorded 46.4 deg C on 7/2/09 so at the present underlying rate of global warming (even assuming no acceleration), Melbourne will probably reach 50 deg C by 2100. I think no acceleration is pretty optimistic though.
#84 Bermard J.
November 20, 2009

Perhaps Anthony Cox, former divorce lawyer and nascent climate researcher extraordinaire, could advice us on the penalties for illegally hacking into someone’s non-public-access electronic files, for passing them on to third parties, and for said third parties publicly displaying such material without permission from the original owners, from whom the material was stolen.

Having been personally involved in a whistleblower case myself, in a matter involving the revelation of fabricated data, I would be especially interested in AC’s considered opinion in the implications of any false claims that might be involved in the current kerfuffle.
#85 WotWot
November 20, 2009

Woo hoo. Tony Abbott just got torn a new one by his leader on national television. Said Abbott’s views are all over the place and inconsistent.
#86 el gordo
November 20, 2009

wotwot…

I think I would rather believe what they say. The country people I meet are hard wired and up to speed. They also go back generations on the land in the same spot and know that flood follows drought.

There is no AGW signal, just the background noise of natural variability.
#87 cohenite
November 20, 2009

I don’t know how I can be plainer Janet; if the leaked documents are real then certain admissions appear to have been made which may sustain legal redress in the way I have described. In any event there are worse things to worry about;

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

But every cloud has its silver lining;

http://besceptical.blogspot.com/2009/10/be-sceptical.html

And have you seen the ads?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/climate-skeptics-party-run-4-television-ads-in-australia/#more-12923
#88 cohenite
November 20, 2009

BJ; how do you know the material was stolen; maybe the leak was by one of the ‘team’ who had a proprietal right to the material; in any event what damage has occurred?
#89 el gordo
November 20, 2009

Cohenite…by acclamation, scrap the fourth ad to avoid being accused of alarmist tactics. Heaven forbid!
#90 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

>*I don’t know how I can be plainer Janet; if the leaked documents are real then certain admissions appear to have been made which may sustain legal redress in the way I have described.*

Anthony, you could be clearer by simply being clear about anything at all. As it stands you are saying “*certain admissions appear to have been made*”.

Back it up, what admission have been made?

You simply smear and run, you’ve provided no detail as to any wrong doing on behalf of those who you smear.

I’ve only seen out of context quote mining repeated by turdphiles (who like Lank, and yourself fail to be clear about any wrong doing of those you smear). It appear turdphiles want to leave the impression of wrong doing, but who only have a bunch of mined quote, completely out of context, and without understanding.

You can’t even plainly state the charge you are making.
#91 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

el gordo, I note like Anthony Cox and Lank , you are niether upto [the challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089489) of offering anything but bogus bluster.

[Like Cox](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089569), you change the topic when challenged simply state your charge. I guess you seem to be satisfied with fostering smear and innuendo, forget the substance hey el gordo.
#92 WotWot
November 20, 2009

There is no AGW signal, just the background noise of natural variability.

Yaaaawn.
#93 Nathan
November 20, 2009

Janet,
Don’t bother ith Cohers, he’s all bluster.

“if the leaked documents are real then certain admissions appear to have been made which may sustain legal redress in the way I have described.”

This doesn’t actually mean anything substantial. All it means to me is that if the emails are true we will have to work out what they mean… And that would most likely be ‘nothing’.
#94 Janet Akerman
November 20, 2009

Yes Nathan,

It seems you set a challenge for the smear-and-run team and the reply is either (a) bluster or (b) chirping of crickets. Or: try a, if called out-> switch to b.
#95 Duae Quartunciae
November 20, 2009

A lot is being made of “hide the decline”.

I am pretty sure I know what that must be referring to. This is unofficial; I have heard nothing on it from any of the parties involved.

However, it is no secret at all that there is indeed spurious decline in proxy based temperature records from tree rings in the Northern Hemisphere. There’s an extensive literature on it; there’s no doubt at all about a decline, and that it is spurious. A recent review paper on this spurious decline is D’Arrigo et al (2007) On the ’divergence problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes, in Global and Planetary Change
Volume 60, Issues 3-4, February 2008, Pages 289-305; doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.03.004

The email in question appears to be speaking of the WMO statement made in 1999: you can see it here: On the Status of Global Climate in 1999. Sure enough; it does have a diagram, showing the three paleorecords described in the email, and if you look at the paper by Briffa where the decline is present, is explicit in the paper and discussed in earlier papers… this is the “divergence problem”.

Basically, a temperature record is obtained by combining the current instrument record with the proxy records from the past. There’s nothing underhand about removing the spurious decline — it’s there in the papers, it is extensively studied, and that’s why that record can’t be extended into the latter half of the twentieth century.

The speed at which people picked out this email and trumpeted it all over the net without any apparent effort to figure out what was being discussed is despicable. It’s not a hoax or a deception; it’s a simple repeat of what is already completely open and clear in the scientific literature; and it exposes — yet again — the so-called “skeptics” as just the opposite. Credulous nitwits who jump on any possible hint of a problem as a grand hoax. Sheesh.
#96 Nathan
November 20, 2009

I’m actually quite curious how this will play out.
The few emails I saw at the Air Vent didn’t look like much more than pretty ordinary emails. It’s hard to see how they could be damning evidence of anything.

More important I suppose is what the skeptics will make of the code. Will they stop the stupid chorus to ‘free the code’? I noticed they didn’t do anything with the GISS code they got.
#97 Jeremy C
November 20, 2009

You know, reading the spill over here it makes me think that Marohasy unintentionally perhaps provided us a public service.

As to Tim’s original thingy about AP appearing to travel in time, there’s no mystery. Speeches, etc are released ahead of time to media organisations so the person delivering the speech or the host group can ensure coverage, quoting etc at the right time. It seems some one on the news desk at AP just mixed up the time of release. The question we should be asking is why does Plimer or the Essington people think that what Plimer has to say is so important that it has to be released ahead of time to journalists. Sounds like to me that Plimer is perhaps well versed in using the media.
#98 Nathan
November 20, 2009

Duae

I get the feeling this could all backfire quite nastily on Jeff ID etc. I get the feeling more than anything they will look like conspiracy nuts…
#99 Nick
November 20, 2009

The idiots are all delighted that some climate researchers are paying attention to their antics,and are not all that well disposed towards them; it seems simply being noticed is enough to validate their conspiracy theories. Though it’s curious that they should find this necessary; they’ve never needed evidence for any of their convictions anyway. The ‘revelation’ of collaboration,discussion and tension between colleagues is shocking! Quick,the salts…
This will no doubt encourage more nonsense under parliamentary privilege here and there,but,Coxenite,are hacked documents admissable in your projective legal fantasies?
#100 Duae Quartunciae
November 20, 2009

Nathan — we can only hope; but there ain’t no justice. The backfire will make no difference to them; any more than the recent kerfuffle over the tree ring records that McIntyre bungled so badly. Of course they are conspiracy nuts; but people love a good conspiracy story. This will be a big noise for a little while, and then it will all die down again until they get their next hobby horse. Sigh. The difference here is the volume of material; it will be interesting and most likely nauseating to watch it play out.