The Australian‘s War on Science 45

The Australian Government has set up a Coasts and Climate Change Council to plan how to adapt to increases in sea levels and cyclone intensity that global warming will most likely bring. Since its about adaption to climate change and planning for the future, in a rational world even on opponent of mitigation like The Australian would be on board, but they are not. The Australian is certain that scientists are wrong about sea level rise and they have an impeccable authority:

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen “no change” to the coastline over that period. “Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future,” said Mr Boman, 53.

Take that, scientists! And in case that by itself is not convincing, Boman’s picture is splashed across five columns on the front page. Now Boman looks like a decent sort and I wouldn’t mind hearing more from him, so if The Australian sacked the people who write its boringly predictable editorials and hired Boman to write them instead, I’d be all for it. But if you want to know whether sea level is rising or not, you need to break out the tide gauges and satellites and let the scientists analyze them. Here’s the result from CSIRO and a graph you will never see printed in The Australian:

Next The Australian trots out Bob Carter, also not an expert on sea level changes.

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong’s comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.

Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century.

IF we check with the CSIRO we find:

We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1870 to 2004. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose almost 20 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.7 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise between 1870 to 2004.

Looks like Carter got his numbers from the CSIRO and misinterpreted them. There is no reason to expect the rate of sea level rise to drop back to what it was in the 20th century, in fact its likely to accelerate.

Against this The Australian brings out its third expert:

Patrick Doab, 63, said he had been visiting Bondi nearly every Sunday since the 1960s and was not worried anything would change.

Of course. This article was written by Lanai Vasek and Matthew Franklin, who really should be ashamed of themselves for stealing this story by Drew Warne-Smith and James Madden, published in The Australian in November:

By comparison, the NSW government’s projections – based on global modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as CSIRO regional analysis – equate to a future rise of about 6.6mm a year. Such a projection has caused widespread concern for landowners and developers, derision from “climate sceptics” within the scientific community and even some head-scratching from Wollongong locals such as Kevin Court, 80.

“I have swum at this beach every day for the past 50 years, and nothing much changes here,” Mr Court said yesterday as he emerged from the surf at Wollongong’s North Beach, just a short paddle from the Port Kembla gauging station.

This, too, was also front-paged with a picture of a bloke in swimmers to prove those silly scientists wrong

But that wasn’t the only shot that The Australian fired in its War on Science today. There was another article, this one by Pia Akerman (yes, she’s the daughter of this guy). Akerman wheels out Ian Plimer to rebut Penny Wong’s speech:

Geology academic and leading climate change sceptic Ian Plimer dismissed Senator Wong’s defence of the IPCC, saying she was “talking codswallop”.

“She has absolutely no idea how temperature is measured, she has no idea of the algorithms used to correct the urban heat island effect,” Professor Plimer said. “She has no idea we’ve gone from about 9000 to 3000 measuring stations, most of which are now in industrialised areas, in cities or around airports, where we have hot fumes coming out of aeroplanes.”

It’s possible that Wong does not know what the algorithms are, but it is certain that Plimer does not. The reduction in the number of stations does not bias the temperature record as Zeke Hausfather explains. And Menne analyzed Watt’s data and found that poorly sited stations produced a cooling bias.

Finally there was an editorial that claimed:

Which is precisely why — as one of the world’s lowest carbon emitters — we need to bide our time before rushing into an ETS.

Yes, Australia is almost in a tie with Mali — look at the graph below.

Comments

#1 Joseph
February 19, 2010

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen “no change” to the coastline over that period.

Another Spangled Drongo, clearly.

Beyond the fact that the trend at one location is practically meaningless, it’s amazing that people think they have perfect recollections, and that they are able to measure things by eyeballing them. It reminds me of a different debate where journalist David Kirby claimed he’s never seen an autistic adult in his life, and therefore recent epidemiology must be wrong.
#2 Eric Lund
February 19, 2010

Of course these blokes who have been swimming at Bondi Beach have seen short-term changes but not noticed long-term changes. There are these things called tides which rise and fall roughly twice a day. I don’t know how high the tides are at Bondi Beach, but most places the tides are of the order of a meter from low tide to high tide. That’s much larger than the secular change, so I’m not surprised that a layman would miss the secular change superimposed on the normal tides. It’s the same category of error as the people who point to some cold spell or snowstorm and claim that global warming isn’t happening.

Carter and Plimer, however, should know better.
#3 David Duff
February 19, 2010

The CSIRO tell us that over 134 years, from 1870 until 2004, the sea rose “almost 20 cm”. Of that rise, they tell us, 100 years’ worth (the 20th c.) was accounted for by an annual average rise of 1.7mm/yr which accounts for 17cm of the total 20cm. This leaves 3cm of rise to be accounted for by the 30 years that preceded the 20th c. and the 4 years which followed. This means the rise during those years must have been .o88mm a year!

Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr, so if anything, Mr. Carter is, dare I say, a tad alarmist!

But here is another view of the subject:

“In 2007, Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory produced a history of global sea levels rise from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from 9 tide gauge stations scattered around the world. The overall average rate of sea level rise in Holgate’s study period was found to be 1.74 ± 0.16mm/yr (about 0.07 in/yr, or 7 inches per century). In addition, he made two other notable findings, 1) the rate of sea level rise was, on average, greater in the first half of his record than the second, and 2) that there is a large degree of decadal variability in the rate of sea level rise.”

This is the site which contains that quote and gives the original reference paper:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

Seems to me the jury’s still out.
#4 t_p_hamilton
February 19, 2010

David Duff:”Seems to me the jury’s still out.”

The first OJ Simpson jury, perhaps. A glance at the graph, which you obviously do not wish to discuss because you can’t, shows the denier logic.

1996: SEA LEVEL STOPPED RISING!11!!ONE!!

1998: OMG SEA LEVEL DECREASING!!ELEVENTY!!

2007: JURY STILL OUT!!!11!!
#5 toby
February 19, 2010

@David Duff,

Some of Simon Holgates results are [here](http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf)

How his finding of 0.5mm/yr higher rate up to 1953 keeps the jury out on global warming is not clear to me. It may be an anomaly, but it is consistent with recent results.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

Incidentally, Holgate has had his own brush with Leake. From http://www.realclimate.org:

“Leake incidentally attacked the scientific work of one of us (Stefan Rahmsdorf) in a Sunday Times article in January. This article was rather biased and contained some factual errors that Stefan asked to be corrected. He has received no response, nor was any correction made. Two British scientists quoted by Leake – Jonathan Gregory and Simon Holgate – independently wrote to Stefan after the article appeared to say they had been badly misquoted. One of them wrote that the experience with Leake had made him “reluctant to speak to any journalist about any subject at all”"
#6 Ratel von Wiki
February 19, 2010

“if the glove does not fit, you must acquit”

has become

“if the tides are not noticeably high, you must deny”

Jeebus help us.
#7 P. Lewis
February 19, 2010

And it’s as well to read what AR4 actually said about sea level, not what some people think they said.
#8 Ian Forrester
February 19, 2010

David Duff said:

Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr, so if anything, Mr. Carter is, dare I say, a tad alarmist!

DD do you know what 1 + 1 is? How bout 1 * 10?

Seems like you have never done any elementary arithmetic or you don’t understand the metric system.

For your information, 20 cms over 134 years is 1.49 mm/yr which is very close to Holgate’s 1.74 ± 0.16mm/yr.

David Duff is, dare I say it, numerically challenged.
#9 Cthulhu
February 19, 2010

Re #2 Eric Lund,

“Tides”? water rising and falling roughly twice a day?

What in heavens are you talking about man. I was at the beach for an hour yesterday and I didn’t notice the water level change at all. And of course everyone knows water finds its own level and so cannot rise and fall of it’s own accord.

Do you work for the IPCC or something??
#10 David Duff
February 19, 2010

Ian Forrester,

I wrote, using CSIRO figures: “1.5mm/yr”

After your comment I checked and my calculator was still switched on showing the figure ’1.49253731′ and I must have rounded it up to 1.5. As Python put it: “Who’s a naughty boy then?”

I suspect you may be, dare I say it, nit-picky challenged!
#11 Ian Forrester
February 19, 2010

David Duff, stop telling lies you wrote “Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr.”

I am not nit picking I am pointing out that you are either a liar or can’t do simple arithmetic.

Do you make such elementary mistakes in everything you post (and hope no one notices)?
#12 Bud
February 19, 2010

Ian

Do you make such elementary mistakes in everything you post (and hope no one notices)?

Duff confessed his ignorance on scientific questions long ago, so you shouldn’t be too hard on him.
#13 Ando
February 19, 2010

Did anyone notice that that the graph illustrates per capita emissions while the Australian editorial discusses total emissions?
#14 Bud
February 19, 2010

Fair spot Ando –

[Total emissions by country - wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

Still bares little resemblance to the claim “one of the world’s lowest carbon emitters”.
#15 Bud
February 19, 2010

Bah – I should follow links! In my defence, I’m rushing before going out… but still, the editorial doesn’t mention total emissions at all, and per capita is more meaningful anyway.
#16 David Duff
February 19, 2010

Ian Forrester,
I am not a liar but I am prepared to admit a mistake, I did indeed leave out the crucial decimal point – mea culpa! Perhaps if you had pointed it out to me in a slightly more polite form we could have saved each other some trouble.

Anyway, happy now?

If so perhaps you would tell me whether this Holgate fella’ is right when he states that the rate of rise was slower in the second half of the period he covered, which is, after all, a crucial point.
#17 jakerman
February 19, 2010

The Australian is right, but you need to break it down in their favour to counter the bias of the facts.

1/3000^th (or 0.03%) of Australia’s emissions is equivalent to “*one of the world’s [lowest carbon emitters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)*”.

Alternatively if the Oz was referring to per capita emissions then the first 5% of the average Australian’s emissions are equivalent to the “*one of the world’s lowest carbon emitters*”.
#18 Ian Forrester
February 19, 2010

David Duff, perhaps if you stopped writing rubbish all over the internet people would be a little bit kinder to you if you make an error. However, since most of the stuff you write is full of mistakes and nonsense one can quite correctly assume that they are not in fact mistakes but deliberate attempts at misinformation and obfuscation.

As for you comments about Holgate, these results can hardly be extrapolated to global coverage since he only uses data from 9 stations, that’s not even one station for each sea and ocean.
#19 llewelly
February 19, 2010

Did anyone notice that that the graph illustrates per capita emissions while the Australian editorial discusses total emissions?

Of course. The Australian article brings up total emissions to confuse its readers.
#20 Joseph
February 19, 2010

Total emissions by country – wiki

I didn’t know China produced more CO2 than the US. Has the right-wing lobby in the US not noticed this, or what’s the deal?
#21 MikeH
February 19, 2010

Here is an article by Stefan Rahmstorf, IPCC lead author on attempts to disprove sea level rise by [cherry picking data](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/climate-change-copenhagen).
#22 toby
February 19, 2010

@David Duff

“perhaps you would tell me whether this Holgate fella’ is right when he states that the rate of rise was slower in the second half of the period he covered, which is, after all, a crucial point.”

It depends on the model he used. You will find below that different climate models give results that are at variance, but not wildly so.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/

One of the paper referenced on the above post is by Simon Holgate and other colleagues, where they find a sea level rise of 2.4mm/yr over the 20th century.

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Jevrejeva_JGR06_-_sea_level_trends_-virtual_station.pdf?attredirects=0

So the matter of a “slightly higher” rise (by 0.5mm/yr) up to 1953, found in a single paper among many, might be anomalous, but overall the published science is consistent with the picture of sea level rise predicted by global warming.

Since Holgate’s opinions have already been abused by Jonathan Leake, so it is not surprising to find his work cherry-picked on World Climate Report, a notorious faux-”scientific” site devoted to denialism.

Since you mentioned a jury, remember a jury is required to cooly examine ALL the evidence, not just bits that are cherry-picked to suit pre-existing prejudice.
#23 blueshift
February 19, 2010

Joseph #20,
Oh yes the right wing has noticed that China is the biggest C02 producer now. Its part of the standard response these days. “It won’t matter what we do because China and India will do whatever they want.”
#24 spangled drongo
February 19, 2010

Tim just loves that graph. The Doltoids war on sceptics.

Instead of quoting Penny’s alarm for our sandy shores you could report on your local conditions that have been around for centuries and generally not deteriorating.

These beach regulars are simply being aware.

In my area not only are the beaches widening and the map of Australia expanding but the sandbanks offshore are also increasing. The local surfers are asking council to remove a huge amount of beach so they can get their old point breaks back.

The Highest Astronomical Tide on the 31/1/10 in my area turned out to be higher than predicted but on my 47 year old benchmark it registered 20 cms lower than it came to in 1963.

That’s what these blokes are saying. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
#25 Michael
February 19, 2010

Talking out of your HAT again drongo?

Anyone who isn’t up to date with drongo’s HAT can see his multiple idiocies [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comments).
#26 spangled drongo
February 19, 2010

We have had “large and expensive nourishment programs” in the past. Many times. It’s nothing new and it had nothing to do with “global warming”.

Since all the alarmism arrived, the bleating and bleeding seems to have fixed the problem but don’t cry wolf too often.
#27 spangled drongo
February 19, 2010

Highest Astronomical Tide [HAT] is the highest level of water which can be predicted to occur under any combination of astronomical conditions.

Michael,

Check with the EPA Coastal Sciences and you will find that this king tide exceeded the HAT value for the area.

And if you’re not getting any sea level rise with one of those then you need to listen to the beach regulars. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
#28 Chris O'Neill
February 19, 2010

drongo:

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

This is the same silly old drongo who thinks choice of endpoints in a sinusoid makes no significant difference to the trend.
#29 Luke
February 19, 2010

Maybe Lee Bowman may be right given sea level rise is not uniform? Although the global mean is rising.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Wonder if he would say the same if he surfed in NW WA.

Cherry picking a single location to prove/disprove sea level rise over a decade or two isn’t a good idea.
#30 Luke
February 19, 2010

URL above got mangled – see hist in italics

should be “sl underscore hist underscore last”
#31 Michael
February 19, 2010

You complete dill drongo.

Contrary to what you want to believe, spring tides are not a better gauge of rising sea levels simply because they are high.

The opposite is the case – by constaining the data to spring tides the number of data points is massively reduced making it more difficult to determine trends.

But hey, who needs satellite altimetery when you can just go for a walk on the beach and have a look for yourself!!

Oh, and what the hell are you dribbling on about @26?
#32 spangled drongo
February 19, 2010

Michael,

You better go back and re-read what you ask of others. So the king tides wont hurt us but the low and median tides will??. Changes in lows and medians can so easily be the result of port improvements which are happening everywhere and they can’t be easily measured on open beaches but if the King tides aren’t getting any higher then, like I say…..

And Luke,

I’ll give you a tip: If at any single point of the sea there has been a negative SLR of 20 cms over 47 years there is no need to panic.
#33 spangled drongo
February 19, 2010

As a further POI, long before the Doltoids War on Sceptics, our coastline was often under threat and houses were being regularly washed into the sea. I know because I helped try to save them and it used to be an annual event, but things have so improved in that department and it’s so long ago that Doltoids probably never even knew it happened.
#34 Chris O'Neill
February 19, 2010

If at any single point of the sea there has been a negative SLR of 20 cms over 47 years there is no need to panic.

On the 6th of February 2009 there had been a negative maximum temperature rise in Victoria for 70 years. There was no need to panic.
#35 jakerman
February 19, 2010

Like I’ve said [many times before](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2256324) Drongo, you should go the the Carteret Islands to have your debate on the single point location that best represents **Global** Mean
Sea level change.
#36 Bud
February 19, 2010

Hi Joseph. The following is stated with the usual caveat of being an undereducated student who is always hoping to be corrected if he’s wrong.

I didn’t know China produced more CO2 than the US. Has the right-wing lobby in the US not noticed this, or what’s the deal?

Don’t live in the US, so can’t comment on what their press say about the figures, but in my honest opinion the comparison based on absolute emissions is utterly meaningless. China is a major emitter, but it has a lot of people to support, and IMHO when the left argues about population and climate change priorities it needs to emphasise this. Look at the per capita emissions and the reduction needed to reach per capita average, and you’ll see the real gap between the two countries’ responsibilities.
#37 Michael
February 19, 2010

Drongo by name, drongo by nature.

This is more pathetic than the Girma infestation. I can see why Drongo loved it over at Jen’s blog – standing next to Graeme Bird he seemed almost sane.

Dear drongo, Bernard has tried to explain it to you many times, but let me try my hand as well (though I don’t have Bernards patience, so it will be brief).

Any local factors that might affect a median or low tide will have precisely the same effect on a spring tide.

“If at any single point of the sea there has been a negative SLR of 20 cms over 47 years there is no need to panic.”

Face-palm.
OK back to basic stats. What will give us a better representation of a population – hundreds of thousands of samples, or just 2?

It’s a tough choice; do we go with multitudinous measurements from satellite altimetry, tidal gauges and buoys, or drongo’s eyeball of one tide 47 yrs ago – ‘it was this high I tell you! {holds hand up}’.

Are you really arguing that sea-level has fallen 20cm in the past 50 yrs and no one has noticed?
#38 spangled drongo
February 19, 2010

Chris and Janet,

Try not to be any more boring than you can help, there are better things we could all be doing. We’ve already thrashed out the SL v temperature chaos comparisons and the “sinking islands”. Next please!
#39 jakerman
February 19, 2010

shorter Drongo,

*All sea inundation is 100% due to sinking land. My backyard is the only valid point to measure. Hence my single location and HAT measurement trump the world’s most competent professionals.*

Remind us Drongo, you have how many data point in the last 40 years?
#40 Chris O'Neill
February 19, 2010

drongo:

Try not to be any more boring than you can help

Drongo loses the argument so his response is nothing more than a personal attack.
#41 Bernard J.
February 19, 2010

[From Mangled Drongo at #27](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2288940):

Highest Astronomical Tide [HAT] is the highest level of water which can be predicted to occur under any combination of astronomical conditions.

Ah, I see that you have adopted the definition as I [explained it to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265030), when [you tried to tell us that a HAT is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2258983):

…just the old twice-a-year king tide…

Remember?

Also at #27 above:

Check with the EPA Coastal Sciences and you will find that this king tide exceeded the HAT value for the area.

So? That’s the whole bloody point of what I and others have been trying to drive into your head over on the [Andrew Bolt in one graph](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php) thread.

And if a tide in 1963 exceeded that of 31 January this year, so bloody what?! Do you have the meteorological data to say that the conditions in 1963 were such that only sea level decline explains the difference between 1963 and 2010 heights?

Then [at #32](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289018):

Changes in lows and medians can so easily be the result of port improvements which are happening everywhere and they can’t be easily measured on open beaches…

Changes in any tide parameter can be the result of “port improvements”, or any other hydrodynamic-altering process, which was another of my points at [post #115 on the Andrew Bolt in one graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265030), and in subsequent postings.

So how exactly do you know that the differences in sea level height that you discern over your period of “observations” is in fact due to global sea level decrease, and not to such local hydrodynamic disturbance? The fact of “open beaches” is irrelevant if you are refering to several particular king tide events in extraordinary meteorological milieux, and which are separated by a period time during which significant hydrodynamic profile shiftings have occurred.

You continue:

… but if the King tides aren’t getting any higher then, like I say…..

On what basis do you say that “King tides aren’t getting any higher”? I [spent quite some effort obtaining and crunching the raw tide gauge data for Brisbane and the Gold Coast](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287098), and graphed the data for you that relates to your claims. And always considering my oft-repeated caveat aboutt cherry-picking a small number of occasions (and extraordinarily extreme and variable occasions at that) I showed you that the linear trend of the Brisbane 1980-2004 and the Gold Coast 1986-2004 king tide heights for January were 4.1 and 8.5 mm/yr respectively.

The February Brisbane and Goald Coast king tide heights were -0.1 and 2.3 mm/yr respectively. Oo, look, a negative value finally snuck in, but of course the caveat about using restricted datasets still remains.

But let’s ignore the dubious monthly data and turn instead to the complete datasets for the post 1980 period. I am not inclined to tart up some graphs just at the moment, but the rates of increase are already at my fingertips… the monthly highest tides at Brisbane demonstrate a linear trend fit that increases at 2.3mm/yr, and the Gold Coast show an increase of – drumroll – 5.8 mm/yr.

You just can’t win, can you drongo?

And finally, there’s [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289032):

As a further POI, long before the Doltoids War on Sceptics, our coastline was often under threat and houses were being regularly washed into the sea. I know because I helped try to save them and it used to be an annual event, but things have so improved in that department and it’s so long ago that Doltoids probably never even knew it happened

“Things have improved” as a consequence of building regulations and of engineering advances. Give “things” another 50 cm sea level increase though and many building regulations and engineering feats will be helpless in the face of those ‘diminishing’ king tides.

Just as your claims were, days ago, in the face of raw data and of the simple facts of the matter…

Your persistence is bemusing, but it seems that you are not alone in adopting this particular misguided meme. I’m waiting for Anthony Watts to clutch it to his bosom now that Menne has taken the wind from his surfacestations’ sails – perhaps you could send him some photos of your seawall when he starts surfacegauges.org and calls it “Watts Up With Tides?”
#42 zoot
February 20, 2010

Can we please limit the “Drongo Saw It With His Own Eyes” infestation to just one thread? Please?
#43 John Nicol
February 20, 2010

One is not at all surprised to find someone from the UNSW presenting arguments criticising a marine geologist, Professor B Carter, for telling it as it is about sea level rise. Geologist’s bread and butter consists of observations of sea levels over millenia and right up to the present, includng the effects of land rise and fall. The models Lambert quotes can’t determine anything correctly.

CSIRO models cannot determine the cooling, now admitted to by their CRU colleagues and were party to the scandal surrounding the Himalayan Glaciers. Much closer to home, the inceased droughts on the Murray and increased cyclones (Known to be declining!) were a ‘mistake’ perhaps. The CSIRO cannot even show us their reasons for claiming carbon dioxide is causing the warming which at present is not happening!
John Nicol
#44 Mike
February 20, 2010

John @43. Bob Carter? The Bob Carter? Gotta hand it to ya. You sure pick the reputable guys.

And…ahem… are you seriously criticising the CSIRO for not showing reasons why increasing CO2 concentrations could be causing warming?

Would you also criticise someone for not explaining why swimming in the ocean can make you wet?
#45 Neil White
February 20, 2010

John Nicol (#43)

Firstly, are you by any chance the John Nicol who is chairman of the scientific advisory board of the Australian Climate Science Coalition?

I suggest that you not take any notice of what Professor B Carter says on sea level (or anything else, for that matter). There are many geologists involved in sea-level research, a good example in Australia being Professor Kurt Lambeck at the Australian National University. I’m not aware of Professor B Carter (shouldn’t it be R Carter anyway?) having any experience with measurements of recent sea levels.

Could you try again with your second paragraph. I find it very hard to parse. The first sentence seems to be saying that CSIRO Models were involved in the “scandal surrounding the Himalayan Glaciers”. Perhaps you could tell us who in (or which model from) CSIRO was involved in this?

The answer to your last sentence, CSIRO doesn’t need to show you – it’s the Greenhouse effect. Oh, and it is warming – you just need to look at appropriately long time spans.

And could you please ask Professor B Carter when he and his co-authors (John McLean and Chris De Freitas) are going to respond to the comment by Foster et al on their pathetic Journal of Geophysical Research paper?

Neil White
#46 Lotharsson
February 20, 2010

I swear there’s a script generator out there somewhere, complete with dodgy grammar and entertaining logic-iness. Can’t tell whether it’s intended to a POE or not though.
#47 Mike
February 20, 2010

Wow, I just looked up the ACSC website. Nary a bigger source of disinformation have I ever seen. Oh look – Bob Carter and Ian Plimer are members. How surprising.

And even more interesting – they have a link to their kiwi brethren, the NZCSC. You know, the ones who were caught flagrantly lying about their “temperature manipulation” allegations, when they failed to correct for site changes (despite being clearly told why they had to) and spread it all over the web that they’d proven kiwi scientists were fudging data. Gee that allegation went quiet when the truth came out and made numerous people look like doddering old fools, eh?

There are many “Doctors” and “Professors” in the ACSC and affiliated organisations, but it’s a great travesty that none of these titles seem to reliably bestow honesty and integrity upon an individual.
#48 spangled drongo
February 20, 2010

“Any local factors that might affect a median or low tide will have precisely the same effect on a spring tide.”

Michael,

You really don’t have a clue do you?

Do you really believe that dredging out a harbour mouth which increases tide bore causing lower low tides and higher average tides, will increase the height of a king tide above ocean levels?

“”Things have improved” as a consequence of building regulations and of engineering advances.”

Bernie Baby,

Are you really saying that all it takes to cure SLR is building regs and engineering advances?

Give us a break!

The “things” that have improved, you dill, is the fact that not one cyclone has crossed the east coast, south of the Tropic of Capricorn, since 1976. Even though the great warming panjandrums are telling us that AGW will produce more of these cyclones, the truth is that we are getting less and, combined with no SLR this is giving sea front living a charmed existence.
#49 spangled drongo
February 20, 2010

Bernard,

Your data on Brisbane and the Gold Coast has the last 6 years missing, is non continuous in the case of Bris and woefully short on the GC plus that tide gauge is now gone. Your argument on king tide and HAT is esoteric rubbish.

As I said to you earlier, the meteorological data at the time of of that HAT suits my argument, not yours [my 20 cms would probably become 25 cms if you normalised pressure and had no onshore gradient] but you get it if you wish.
#50 Michael
February 20, 2010

drongo, local tidal factors affect all tides.

Spring tides are not a different creature, they work the same way as other tides.

I suggested a book for you on the other thread. Try cracking it open, you might learn something.
#51 Bernard J.
February 20, 2010

Drongo [tries to swerve](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289505):

Do you really believe that dredging out a harbour mouth which increases tide bore causing lower low tides and higher average tides, will increase the height of a king tide above ocean levels?

Drongo, let’s forget for a moment that you provide no evidence to support your claim of tide changes of a particular pattern (which I will chase up by the way, so hold on to your seat). You are attempting to float a big red herring here, because it matters not what I think in response to your hypothetical scenario – however carefully one has to consider the cherry-picked nature of the parameter that you selected, the data nevertheless show that, for both Brisbane and the Gold Coast, high tide heights increased over time from the 1980s to the middle of the first decade in the 21st century.

If you think that “dredging” (however relevant it might actually be to the overall matter) doesn’t increase king tide levels, which seems to be the implication of the wording of your question, then fine…

So, what other factors did contribute to the increasing high tide maximum level over time?

Are you really saying that all it takes to cure SLR is building regs and engineering advances?

No.

As your mate cohenite likes to say, you are verballing me.

Pull your head in, buster…

Drongo [tries to swerve again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289523):

Your data on Brisbane and the Gold Coast has the last 6 years missing, is non continuous in the case of Bris and woefully short on the GC plus that tide gauge is now gone

What do you expect would have happened in the last six years that would buck the two decades of data prior? How would this change support your claim that sea levels are decreasing rather than increasing?

How does the gap in the Brisbane Bar record in any way negate the trend post-1980? How would event occuring during this gap support your claim that sea levels are decreasing rather than increasing?

What does the removal of the Gold Coast gauge do to negate the reocrd whilst it was there? How does its removal support your claim that sea levels are decreasing rather than increasing?

Can you explain exactly why you believe that my “argument on king tide and HAT is esoteric rubbish”?

As I said to you earlier, the meteorological data at the time of of that HAT suits my argument, not yours

Fine.

Show us then your analysis of local barometric and wind conditions, of regional barometric and wind conditions, of recent hydrodynamic/bathymetric shifts (both natural and human-caused), and of ocean current patterns at the time of the January tide, and in your touted tide back in 1963.

Compare and contrast.

How many times now have I asked you for your data/evidence, and how many times have you also been asked to address the questions of science pertaining to this discussion? Would you like me to link you to all of them yet again, just so that you can keep a record of the homework you need to do, and that is backing up?

What are you hiding from drongo? Are you afraid to address the science? Are you intellectually unable to address the science?

Come on bucko. You made some mighty big claims, and in doing so you implied incompetence and/or fraud on behalf of many scientists.

Support your claims.
#52 TrueSceptic
February 20, 2010

3,16 David Duff,

The problem is that you made a big fuss about the figures and yet got them wrong. Didn’t you even check what you wrote before posting?

The CSIRO tell us that over 134 years, from 1870 until 2004, the sea rose “almost 20 cm”. Of that rise, they tell us, 100 years’ worth (the 20th c.) was accounted for by an annual average rise of 1.7mm/yr which accounts for 17cm of the total 20cm. This leaves 3cm of rise to be accounted for by the 30 years that preceded the 20th c. and the 4 years which followed. This means the rise during those years must have been .o88mm a year!

Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr, so if anything, Mr. Carter is, dare I say, a tad alarmist!

200 mm/134 years = 1.49 mm/year, (1.5 is close enough IMO).

1.7 mm * 100 years = 170 mm.

That leaves us with 30 mm over 34 years (pre 1900 and post 2000).

30 mm/34 years = 0.88 mm/year, roughly half of the other quoted rates, not 0.088!

Making one factor-of-ten mistake (15, not 1.5) is bad enough when attacking published figures but making a second (0.088, not 0.88) is really not on. I’ll be checking your arithmetic from now on!
#53 anthony
February 20, 2010

“the fact that not one cyclone has crossed the east coast, south of the Tropic of Capricorn, since 1976.”

That’s an entertainingly specific set of parameters, spangs. What was the frequency before 1976?
#54 Dano
February 20, 2010

If you search the high-carbon footprinted The Google, you can find older SLR graphs with lower trend rises (e.g. IIRC 2002 = 2.4mm/yr) you can then put a recent one next to it and show the recent increase in SLR rate.

Best,

D
#55 Daniel J. Andrews
February 20, 2010

Are you sure the Australian isn’t a spoof? You know, sort of like the Onion? That skit about the guy who refuses to admit he has cancer comes to mind.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/courageous_man_refuses_to_believe
#56 jakerman
February 20, 2010

Drongo writes:

>*Michael, You really don’t have a clue do you? Do you really believe that dredging out a harbour mouth which increases tide bore causing lower low tides and higher average tides, will increase the height of a king tide above ocean levels?*

>*Bernie Baby, Are you really saying that all it takes to cure SLR is building regs and engineering advances? Give us a break!*

>*Try not to be any more boring than you can help, there are better things we could all be doing. We’ve already thrashed out the SL v temperature chaos comparisons and the “sinking islands”. Next please!*

Is there anyone more confident than a fool?

But I won’t call Drongo a complete fool, he knows enough that he needs to keep constructing these false allusions and strawmen to divert focus from the terminal weakness of his argument.

Drongo remind us how many data point you have? And based on your “data” do you seriously believe you have overturned the GMSL results of the worlds most competent research organisations?

You are a case-study of denial. How much can one person argue black is white? Fascinating.
#57 Dr Who
February 21, 2010

Per capita measures on their own dont tell you enough about GLOBAL warming.

They have to be related to the area of the GLOBE occupied by that nation state.

When that is done, and account of taken of Australias large land area, and equally large territorial sea area.. then guess what…

The order is reversed, and the pissy Europpean states are at the top land we are on the bottom.

It is utterly absurd to talk about a global problem and not do this and not relate to the area of responsibilty.

One of could not expect the brain dead bozos in Canberra to comprehend these logical constructs, they are still struggling with a proper and consistent definition of CC.

God help us
#58 Lotharsson
February 21, 2010

Per capita measures on their own dont tell you enough about GLOBAL warming.

[my emphasis]

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

When that is done, and account of taken of Australias large land area, and equally large territorial sea area.. then guess what…

…we’re one of the worst per capita emitters.

One ~~of could~~ would not expect the not-brain-dead bozos in Canberra to ~~comprehend~~ pay any attention to these illogical constructs…

Fixed it for you.
#59 jakerman
February 21, 2010

Mmm, CO2 emission per unit area.

Monckton and the large land owning lords would love Dr Who’s new scheme. Ranking of CO2 emissions per unit area. The Aristocrat’s rather than the democrats choice.

Blame those greedy poor in Mumbai rather than the landed Gentry.

Imagine the economics of chasing out the poor. Sounds delightful!

I think global warming and global inequality already bring enough pressures towards genocide, we don’t need “Dr Who’s” little fantasy to twist the knife further.
#60 David Duff
February 21, 2010

In future I must remember that Mr. Forrest is one of the new 21st c. style gentlemen possessed as he is of all the wit, charm and courtesy of a rabid rat.

Turning to ‘Truesceptic’, I have no difficulty in owning up to errors. Looking back from advanced age I can see (now) that my life is strewn with them which is part of the reason I frequently doubt certainty and people who swear by it! Incidentally, my error in printing “.o88mm” is obviously a typo given that I (inadvertantly) hit the lower case letter ‘o’ and not the number ’0′.

However, no-one seems to have bothered with my main point concerning the CSIRO figures which appear to show such an enormous change from 30 years of one century compared to 100 years of the next. I’m no statisticiam but I would have expected them to be somewhat closer. Nor, ‘Truesceptic’, was I “attacking” the figures, I was just pointing out a puzzle in them and hoping that someone would explain it.

Someone else above decried Holgate’s figures because they are based on only 9 measuring units, which is a fair criticism, but on the other hand, they do provide figures going back (I think) a hundred years which is considerably longer than the satellite figures. Again, I have no remit to promote Holgate but surely those 9 measurement devices are worth some study. Someone else provided links to other papers by Holgate for which thanks adn I will get round to reading them soonest.
#61 Joseph
February 21, 2010

They have to be related to the area of the GLOBE occupied by that nation state.

No, that makes no sense.

The per-capita scheme is more sensible and here’s why. From an equal rights perspective, every person in the world should have the same right to having a CO2 footprint as everyone else. At the country level, this obviously translates to a per-capita measure.

Conversely, the surface area scheme is not sensible. A small country would be allowed to be as wasteful as they want.
#62 This really is my last comment
February 21, 2010

I enjoy comments that refer to those you disagree with as rabid rats.
#63 Bruce Sharp
February 21, 2010

David Duff, what you describe as a “typo” isn’t even the primary problem in your approach to the sea-level statistics. Your method is logically flawed. Comparing the average of numbers from the middle of the dataset with the average of numbers from the beginning and end of the dataset isn’t going to tell you anything meaningful about trends within the data.

Here’s a simple example to illustrate. Suppose, every ten years, we take some measurements. If we look at these measurements, we can see an obvious upward trend:

1889 — 10
1899 — 10
1909 — 10
1919 — 10
1929 — 10
1939 — 10
1949 — 20
1959 — 20
1969 — 20
1979 — 20
1989 — 20
1999 — 20
2009 — 30

What would happen if we used your method to evaluate these numbers? We would see that the average in the 20th century was 16. The average in other decades, however, works out to 16.67. Does that mean that there isn’t an upward trend?

As an aside, David, if people like Ian Forrester are rude to you, I think that’s because your posts at Deltoid tend to be smug and condescending… and for the most part, you’re condescending while simultaneously being wrong. In this instance, however, the tone in your post was reasonable. The post was wrong both mathematically and logically, but still, you were at least politely wrong.

I’m of the opinion that it’s easier to have a productive discussion when we don’t assume the worst about each other. I wouldn’t expect someone to be willing to help me understand something if I began the conversation by calling that person an idiot.

Regards,
Bruce
#64 Paul UK
February 21, 2010

In the area I live, the land mass is only sinking by about 0.5mm per year.
However the local Tidal gauge registers a sea level rise of about 5mm to 6mm per year.
#65 Gaz
February 21, 2010

In the area I live, the land mass is only sinking by about 0.5mm per year. However the local Tidal gauge registers a sea level rise of about 5mm to 6mm per year.

Oh sure, but have you asked some random bloke who goes for a swim there every now and then, hmmm?

I didn’t think so.

You and your so-called facts.
#66 Paul UK
February 21, 2010

Gaz:
>Oh sure, but have you asked some random bloke who goes for a swim there every now and then, hmmm?
I didn’t think so.
You and your so-called facts.

Heh, heh, heh…

I downloaded the gauge data last week from the British Oceanographic Data Centre web site.

But some time this year I’ll be more scientific and go to the beach asking for peoples opinion.
#67 Dr Who
February 21, 2010

” Conversely, the surface area scheme is not sensible. A small country would be allowed to be as wasteful as they want.”

Conversely also small countries in area with large populations will be sending their emmissions across their, borders because they have no hope of absorbing any within their own boundaries.

I did say per capita on its own, doesnt tell the full story.

The AGW science also says that emmissions also have a regional climactic effect.Further I assume that the Climate Change Regulatory Authority ( I love that name for its sheer stupidity), would be trying to encourage people to see that their emmissions are offset locally

Like I said the brain dead bozos from the Brindabellas wouldnt understand this ..too busy polishing their already shiny arses and currying favour with the worst PM ever…. worse than Whitlam
#68 spangled drongo
February 21, 2010

Paul UK,

You could always step across the ditch and check with the cheese choppers.

They’ll tell you that there is no accelleration in SLR and that SLs were higher in the MWP when they didn’t have satellites telling them otherwise.

Because the “random bloke” has more to lose sooner you’ll find that they have better evidence and better obs.
#69 Witch Dr
February 21, 2010

Shorter Dr Which,

*I concede that CO2/m^2 is a worse measure than CO2 per capita, but such misdirection is the only way I could think of to try and support The Oz’s gross distortion.*
#70 Vince Whirlwind
February 21, 2010

Notice how denialists just love to reduce the clarity of their message in what I imagine they think is their way of pretending familiarity with a subject:
“no accelleration in SLR”
“SLs were higher ”
“in the MWP ”
“better obs”
“in the case of Bris”
“short on the GC”
“at the time of of that HAT”
#71 MapleLeaf
February 21, 2010

And the wheel slowly starts to turn:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
#72 jakerman
February 21, 2010

Maple,

Hope you’re correct, but Clive hasn’t changed [his momentum](http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php). We’ll need to find other examples for evidence of change.

He’s still a must read.
#73 spangled drongo
February 21, 2010

Vince,

What do you find about “no acceleration in SLR” and “SLs were higher in the MWP” etc. that isn’t clear?

Janet,

Is that Clive there’s-something-you-need-to-know-about-your-father Hamilton?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hamilton_damns_the_abuse_he_dishes_out/

Great momentum.

He should run for parliament.
#74 jakerman
February 21, 2010

I notice cohnite is pushing the same line that he could not support in argument here: < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php#comment-2272995>

Anthony Cox (aka Cohnite) conveniently leaves out the the bit where he is actually comparing surface SW (shortwave) radiation with OLR (Outgoing Longwave Raidation at the Top Of Atmosphere) for the tropics only.

As secretary for some climate ‘skepic’s group I wonder if Cox is among those that Hamilton is calling out?

#75 jakerman
February 21, 2010

Drongo, your’s and Bolt’s disapproval is a plus on Hamilton’s record. Especially given [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php) and [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/shorter_andrew_bolt.php) and [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2290436).

When you and bolt write, you’re just not credible.
#76 Dr Who
February 21, 2010

Witch DR

Your post is meaningless.

As for including a Co2/m/2 figure had you thought of the possibilty that it would then be a measure to indicate perhaps where populations should be reduced, because the environment cant handle it.. eg Japan and Europe

But then as the per capita alone measure came out of Europe, its no wonder they dont want it to be anything different. Cant have it both ways for a global problem
#77 Vince Whirlwind
February 21, 2010

Drongo, the thing I find unclear is why anything short of a mental illness would make you think your unwritten dataset trumps the CSIRO’s expert, considered science.

< http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html>

CSIRO shows a 1.6mm/year rise, accelerating to 3mm/year in recent times, and we are looking at projections of something between 20cm-70cm by 2100. These are basic facts which are not disproven by your fantasy dataset.

#78 spangled drongo
February 22, 2010

Janet,

As a champion of the “Doltoids War on Sceptics” he would need all the plusses he could muster particularly with a philosophy about holocaust deniers being relatively blameless but climate sceptics will kill us all.
#79 Witch Dr
February 22, 2010

>*As for including a Co2/m/2 figure had you thought of the possibilty that it would then be a measure to indicate perhaps where populations should be reduced, because the environment cant handle it.. eg Japan and Europe*

Shorter Which Dr,

>I would like to use the metric of CO2/m^2 to remove people from Japan and Europe and send them to the least hospitable place on the planet such as large uninhabited desserts.

>Don’t ask me for details of how this would work, because I’m just saying any old crap in a futile attempt to provide cover for the gross misrepresentation of the Oz.
#80 jakerman
February 22, 2010

>*As a champion of the “Doltoids War on Sceptics” he would need all the plusses he could muster*

If you say so [Mr Credibility](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2290436).
#81 spangled drongo
February 22, 2010

Vince,

CSIRO may be “basic facts” to you but as someone famous once said “include me out”. Like the cheese choppers I understand very well that SL vigorously seeks equilibrium and when after 47 years nothing is happening in MBY I dont wet the bed.

When you’ve checked your back yard as thoroughly, come and talk to me.
#82 spangled drongo
February 22, 2010

Mr Cred eh? Thanks janet.

Anything specific though?
#83 Vince Whirlwind
February 22, 2010

Drongo,

– who said “include me out”?

– What are “cheese choppers”?

– If “SL” “vigorously seeks equilibrium”, how come I can surf?

– “47 years nothing is happening” is your fantasy, disproved by the facts.

– “Don’t wet the bed”, I beg to differ – you seem quite hysterical.

– I won’t be conducting any personal checks for sea level rise in my back yard as I have a different area of expertise and intend to rely on the trained experts instead.
#84 jakerman
February 22, 2010

>*Anything specific though?*

Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

And are you really concealing data in your private life’s diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn’t really exist?
#85 Chris O'Neill
February 22, 2010

after 47 years nothing is happening in MBY I dont wet the bed

After 70 years nothing was happening and people didn’t wet the bed on the 6th of January 2009.
#86 Chris O'Neill
February 22, 2010

6th of January 2009

6th of February 2009.
#87 John
February 22, 2010

“Vigorously seeks equilibrium” is my new favourite phrase. Someone’s hitting the thesaurus!
#88 Mike
February 22, 2010

…..particularly with a philosophy about holocaust deniers being relatively blameless but climate sceptics will kill us all.

Huh?

Alright, I recommend laying off the hard stuff. It’s not good for your health.

Climate sceptics won’t “kill” us. They just desperately want to bury decades of scientific research and advancement, which may adversely affect how we deal with our future. That’s all.
#89 Neil White
February 22, 2010

Spangled Drongo (#81)

You state “…I understand very well that SL vigorously seeks equilibrium…”.

So, the graph shown here is an example of something “vigorously seeking equilibrium”, is it? Do you have any idea at all of what you’re talking about? The water in the ocean fills whatever space it needs to fill. The volume changes because of thermal expansion or contraction, and because of exchanges with the atmosphere and reservoirs in and on the land (ice sheets, glaciers, rivers, lakes, groundwater etc). In addition the shape of the ocean basins changes through geological processes on various time scales causing changes of apparent sea level.

Where did you pull that impressive sounding phrase from?

Neil White
#90 Mark
February 22, 2010

One key reason why holocaust denial is a crime against humanity, it that it increases the risk of future holocaust.

If we forget (aided by denial) the ideology and dynamics that allowed the holocaust against the Jews (and other), we shorten the return rate of such practices.

There is a similar risk for environmental holocaust; If we deny the implications of current unsustainable practices we reduce the time and resource for our civilization to mitigate foreseeable holocausts.
#91 David Duff
February 22, 2010

Bruce, thanks for that explanation but it wasn’t me who picked out one hundred years from a statistical record of 134 years, it was the way the figures were presented in the original post up above. Nor am I disputing a rise in sea levels over time – anymore than I dispute a change in global temperatures over time – but I am interested in finding out how the measurements are made, and that’s before we even get on to the subject of how they are then adjusted.

You, I feel sure, will enjoy the delicious irony in the timing of this headline from The Guardian:

“Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels”

Even more delicious si the fact that the poor chap who originally wrote the paper for Nature Geoscience mag doesn’t know whether his forecasts were too high or too low!

Read all about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

Like I said, the jury’s still out.

Finally, I don’t think I have ever begun a conversation with an insult, although I might have ended one or two that way if sufficiently provoked.
#92 jakerman
February 22, 2010

David Duff writes:

>*Like I said, the jury’s still out.*

Problem for Duff is that he doesn’t know what the jury is debating.
#93 Dr Who
February 22, 2010

You are right about one thing Witch Dr, you are peddling any old crap

It isnt gross misrepresentation of the Oz as you call it.It is actually allowing the natural characteristics of the Oz to be allowed, for in any idiot league table.

It says someting about the piss poor negotiating skills of those representing our country that they allow the stupid per capita measure to run and be used in negative way without consideration being given to the huge area we are responsible for..and its abilty to soak up our own and others Co2 ..eg the Japs.
#94 spangled drongo
February 22, 2010

Vince,

Sam Goldwyn said “Include me out”.

Cheese Choppers are the Dutch.

You surf and you don’t know about waves!!??

What IS your field of expertise?

Chris,

You mustn’t've got it the first time but temperatures and SLs are a bit different. eg temps vary somewhat with latitude whereas SLs “vigorously seek equilibrium” world wide.

John,

That “thesaurus” a good drop?

Mike,

You’re not paying attention. It’s not the sceptics that want to bury data. You need to speak to Phil Jones and Hockey Stick Mick.
#95 Witch Dr Voodoo Who do
February 22, 2010

Dr Voodoo Who do,

Give us the details of how your scheme would work. Show us that you are not full of it.

How exactly do you plan use the your Aristocrat’s metric in place of the humanitarian and democratic per capita metrics?

You have had ample opportunity to develop a lucid case, but you’ve failed dismally. I’m simply calling you on it every time you fail. Now give the details.
#96 spangled drongo
February 22, 2010

And so’s you all can understand SLs a little better, while you bathe tonight read up a bit on Archimedes.
#97 Chris O'Neill
February 22, 2010

< http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall> :

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.

As we all know, this couldn’t really happen because Rahmstorf is part of the global warming conspiracy.
#98 jakerman
February 22, 2010

What no response [for me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2292999) Drongo?

Ignore me and…
#99 David Duff
February 22, 2010

Ah, Jakerman, so you agree there is a jury and presumably that it is still in deliberation.
#100 jakerman
February 22, 2010

>*Ah, Jakerman, so you agree there is a jury and presumably that it is still in deliberation.*

Sure do, as do those who asserted the science is settled on the question of the rising mean temperature.