The Conversation on climate change concludes

The series of articles on climate change in The Conversation concludes:

David Karoly: Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality:

Let’s fall through a rabbit hole and enter a different world: the “Carter reality”. In that world, it is OK to select any evidence that supports your ideas and ignore all other evidence. …

In the Carter reality, “there has been no net warming between 1958 and 2005.” Of course, in the real world, there is no basis for this statement from scientific analysis of observational data. The decade of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s, which was warmer than the 1980s, which was warmer than the 1970s, which was warmer than the 1960s.

So where does Carter’s statement come from? In the Carter reality, he finds a hot year early in the period and a cold year much later, and says there’s been no warming. This would be like saying that winter is not colder than summer because a very hot day in winter might happen to have much the same temperature as a very cold day in summer, ignoring all the other days.

Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley:
The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change:

Finally, no truthful analysis of the Australian media landscape can avoid highlighting the maliciousness of some media organisations, primarily those owned by Newscorp, which are cartoonish in their brazen serial distortion of scientists and scientific findings.

Those organisations have largely escaped accountability to date, and we believe that it is a matter of urgency to expose their practice.

For example, it is not a matter of legitimate editorial process to misrepresent what experts are telling Newscorp reporters — some of whom have been known to apologize to scientists in advance and off the record for their being tasked to return from public meetings, not with an actual news story but with scathing statements from the handful of deniers in the audience.

It is not a matter of legitimate editorial process to invert the content of scientific papers.

It is not a matter of legitimate editorial process to misrepresent what scientists say.

It is not a matter of legitimate editorial process to prevent actual scientists from setting the record straight after the science has been misrepresented.

Comments

#1 bill
June 26, 2011

It is truly a pleasure to see those long overdue for a comeuppance receive it in spades in this series.

Congratulations to all concerned, and I see no reason for the pressure on the disinformers to abate, whether they be professionals or the amateur zealots that haunt these forums.
#2 Sou
June 26, 2011

Slightly OT but in keeping with the theme – anyone else had it pointed out to them (by a denier) that Bolt is at it again in a blog entry yesterday?

This time spreading lies by a chap named Solomon that the US Supreme Court ruled against climate change? The disinformation is easily shown up as such by looking at the Supreme Court opinion itself, which Bolt and Solomon both link to. Both Bolt and Solomon undoubtedly assume, probably correctly, that no denier worth his (or less likely her) salt would bother to check the facts of the matter.
#3 Joseph
June 26, 2011

Well Done ! Australia’s Government has “solved” the problem-per usual in a spontaneous manner. They are proposing a CARBON TAX. Of course there will be compensation which will be something like: You give the government $100.00 and we will somehow(never described how) $75.00 back.

Of course this same government managed to Spend (waste) a Surplus of more than $40 Billion Dollars in three years and is now still claming BOOM TIMES,but we still do not even have Divided Highways linking our CAPITAL CITIES in 2011
#4 Joseph
June 26, 2011

PS I am a TROLL and You can tell (see) that am I because I CAN’T POst without using arbitrary CAPITALISATION and syntax Mangling my.
#5 allen mcmahon
June 26, 2011

@1 and they should have their beliefs tattooed on em. so our grand-kids can give them hell if they and everybody else have not been turned into crispy critters by then.
#6 rhwombat
June 26, 2011

Is it a full moon, or did someone forget to shut the troll door?
#7 jrkrideau
June 26, 2011

@ Joeseph
“BOOM TIMES,but we still do not even have Divided Highways linking our CAPITAL CITIES in 2011″

Be thankful you don’t. More pollution, more road deaths, more noise—gee those multi-lane roads are nice.

It’s lovely sitting out by the pool on a lovely sunny night listening the hundreds of heavy semi’s roaring down the road, a half-dozen kilometres away.

Google Hwy 401 in Canada for my example.
#8 SP
June 26, 2011

Change of venue but Carter still gets published… why?
[An inconvenient fallacy](http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html)

Perhaps The Age in disseminating his obviously wrong arguments is just giving him the rope?
#9 Adam
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter has an opinion piece in the Age today. He claims that from 1998 to 2008 there was “Slight Global Cooling”. Even if he meant only the Atmosphere he is still very wrong.

And Abbott reckons this guy is an expert?

I notice Spooner, a cartoonist I once admired, has continued to spew forth ignorant denier meme.
#10 GSW
June 26, 2011

@Adam

Like to see the Spooner cartoon Adam, do you have the link?
#11 GSW
June 26, 2011

@Adam

Ah Got it. Not bad, the whole Robin Hood thing with the subtitle

“There is no need for a carbon tax because dangerous global warming is not occurring.”

Nice!
#12 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
June 26, 2011

> Newscorp reporters — some of whom have been known to apologize to scientists in advance and off the record for their being tasked to return from public meetings, not with an actual news story but with scathing statements from the handful of deniers in the audience.

Hey scholars, what’s the use of telling us all these? What do you expect us to do, find Rupert Murdoch and whack him in the head?

Except for Michael Mann, and Andrew Weaver, climate researchers seem to me to be extremely reluctant to take any concrete, direct action to punish the climate science disinformers for their disinformation. And no, writing lots of essays doesn’t really count.

As I said, if climate folks won’t vigorously protect their own rights, there’s nothing much we can do to help them.

– frank
#13 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
June 26, 2011

GSW:

Begone, foul troll.

– frank
#14 Hank Roberts
June 26, 2011

> lies by a chap named Solomon that the US Supreme Court
> ruled against climate change?

Yep, a camel promptly dropped a copypaste from Solomon into the bravenewclimate thread on “The Conversation” (sigh).

Solomon’s easy to debunk, by looking at the actual text of the decision, but as you point out, the people copypasting Solomon don’t bother to check their asserted source.

Such trusting souls, these ‘skeptics’ are.
#15 Don Wigan
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter continues on his merry way with an op-ed in The Age today
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

Rather funny. At the moment I am drawing up a response in to a writer in the Warrnambool Standard who complains that the ‘alternative case’ against AGW is not covered in the mainstream media by “reputable scientists” like David Bellamy and Bob Carter.

I’d say he’s got it exactly opposite. They can get plenty of coverage in the mainstream media. It’s in mainstream science that they have the problem.
#16 Don Wigan
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter continues on his merry way with an op-ed in The Age today
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

Rather funny. At the moment I am drawing up a response in to a writer in the Warrnambool Standard who complains that the ‘alternative case’ against AGW is not covered in the mainstream media by “reputable scientists” like David Bellamy and Bob Carter.

I’d say he’s got it exactly opposite. They can get plenty of coverage in the mainstream media. It’s in mainstream science that they have the problem.
#17 Don Wigan
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter continues on his merry way with an op-ed in The Age today
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

Rather funny. At the moment I am drawing up a response in to a writer in the Warrnambool Standard who complains that the ‘alternative case’ against AGW is not covered in the mainstream media by “reputable scientists” like David Bellamy and Bob Carter.

I’d say he’s got it exactly opposite. They can get plenty of coverage in the mainstream media. It’s in mainstream science that they have the problem.
#18 Don Wigan
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter continues on his merry way with an op-ed in The Age today
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

Rather funny. At the moment I am drawing up a response in to a writer in the Warrnambool Standard who complains that the ‘alternative case’ against AGW is not covered in the mainstream media by “reputable scientists” like David Bellamy and Bob Carter.

I’d say he’s got it exactly opposite. They can get plenty of coverage in the mainstream media. It’s in mainstream science that they have the problem.
#19 Don Wigan
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter continues on his merry way with an op-ed in The Age today
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

Rather funny. At the moment I am drawing up a response in to a writer in the Warrnambool Standard who complains that the ‘alternative case’ against AGW is not covered in the mainstream media by “reputable scientists” like David Bellamy and Bob Carter.

I’d say he’s got it exactly opposite. They can get plenty of coverage in the mainstream media. It’s in mainstream science that they have the problem.
#20 Don Wigan
June 26, 2011

Bob Carter continues on his merry way with an op-ed in The Age today
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

Rather funny. At the moment I am drawing up a response in to a writer in the Warrnambool Standard who complains that the ‘alternative case’ against AGW is not covered in the mainstream media by “reputable scientists” like David Bellamy and Bob Carter.

I’d say he’s got it exactly opposite. They can get plenty of coverage in the mainstream media. It’s in mainstream science that they have the problem.
#21 SP
June 28, 2011

@12 frank,
One possible action individuals might take is to write to the VC of James Cook and Adelaide Uni and suggest that the continuing lies and distortions that Carter and Plimer make has influenced your decision to enroll yourself or your children.

With enrollments waning at many universities they may take note.
#22 Stu N
June 29, 2011

John McLean has infested the comments on David Karoly’s piece. Surprisingly, no-one seems to have challenged him on whether he agrees with Carter’s, *ahem*, ‘scientific’ methods. Personally I can’t be bothered, having watched McLean crash and burn in a different comment thread after the release of his El Nino paper (although it was hilarious that he carried on after everyone else in the thread was satisfied he was wrong).

On the subject of nonsensical comments, try this one on for size: “Furthermore, the solar insolation provides less than 10% of the total heat energy in the total Earth system, the rest coming from gravity.”

That’s from Douglas Cotton. The stupid, it really, really burns.
#23 Stu N
June 29, 2011

Sorry for the slightly off-topic double post, but this seems worth re-iterating. A poster in the thread on Bob Carter reminded us that John Mclean claimed that 2011 would be the
coldest year since 1956 or earler.

If you ever run across McLean, please take the opportunity to remind him of his prediction, preferably with data on the temperature of the year-to-date from multiple sources.