In an interview in The Australian (behind The Australian‘s paywall, search for “Gadfly Geoffrey Blainey”) historian Geoffrey Blainey gets his history wrong:

In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be global warming over the next 40 years.

That’s not true, as Ian Musgrave explains.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    November 14, 2011

    McIntyre isn’t as low as the pedophiles he exploits for his dog-whistl…er, blatantly fallacious attempts at character assassination through guilt-by-association.

    But he’s arguably angling to be on the next rung up.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    November 14, 2011

    And speaking of contempt for McIntyre’s latest, [what Former Skeptic said](http://deepclimate.org/2011/11/11/open-thread-11/#comment-10013). And [Robert Murphy](http://deepclimate.org/2011/11/11/open-thread-11/#comment-10020). And MapleLeaf. And others.

    Meanwhile apparently Watts and Bishop Hill laud McIntyre’s comments.

    Scum.

  3. #3 foram
    November 14, 2011

    Meanwhile, editorial practices in The Australian are up to their usual standards:

    Local scale absorption of Carbon dioxide by adjacent areas of seagrass and algae proves surprise short term source of hope for reefs at risk from carbon dioxide

    [Carbon dioxide proves surprise source of hope for reefs at risk](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/carbon-dioxide-may-save-some-coral-reefs-from-climate-change-impact/story-e6frg8y6-1226190655762)

  4. #4 ianam
    November 14, 2011

    “Clare” = commercial spam.

  5. #5 Olaus Petri
    November 14, 2011

    A bit off topic friends, but possible good IPCC news coming up:

    “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaked-text-of-ipcc-extreme-report.html

    I know all of us hope for the best! :-)

  6. #6 ianam
    November 14, 2011

    If the century progresses without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts will come to dominate, it forecasts:

    “It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas…
    “It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st Century over many areas of the globe…
    “Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase…
    “There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st Century in some seasons and areas…
    “Low-probability high-impact changes associated with the crossing of poorly understood thresholds cannot be excluded, given the transient and complex nature of the climate system.

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    November 14, 2011

    Dear Ianam, not good enough of course, but better than we thought (before). That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

    Always look at the bright side of life..

  8. #8 jakerman
    November 14, 2011

    >not good enough of course, but better than we thought (before). That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

    No you are comparing a short period with a long period. It has always been known that internal variation dominates the 0.2 deg C/decade warming trend over the short term but upward of the 2-3 decade scale the AGW forcing dominates the internal cycling.

    Please demonstrate how this is better that we though before.

  9. #9 ianam
    November 14, 2011

    better than we thought (before).

    No moron, it isn’t. You and the rest of the denialati are just too plain stupid to understand what this report says …

    “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

    So it will be 20-30 years before the effects of AGW swamp natural climate variability as the cause of weather extremes … all the while, the number and intensity of such extremes will continue to rise.

  10. #10 ianam
    November 14, 2011

    I know all of us hope for the best! :-)

    The question isn’t what we hope for, it’s what we do. Sick stupid garbage like you impede efforts to get the best results.

  11. #11 Steve L
    November 14, 2011

    foram — that’s amazing!
    somehow the Oz couldn’t bring itself to say that preserving sea grass beds near coral reefs will help the reef as well as the sea grass bed.
    bastards.

  12. #12 SteveC
    November 14, 2011

    @ foram Re the OO headline – good spot. I’m sure the excluded bits were just simpel printting erorz.

  13. #13 John
    November 14, 2011

    Nice try Olaus! On to the next one!

  14. #14 Olaus Petri
    November 15, 2011

    Ianam, cheer up! :-)

  15. #15 ianam
    November 15, 2011

    Olaus, you’re a shit stain on the universe! :-)

  16. #16 Hasis
    November 15, 2011

    Well, RPJr has really excelled himself this time. I thought, of course he’s going to mention the uncertainties in quantifying AGW-related losses to date; that what he does. But for him to stop his review of Black’s article on the line before it starts to discuss projections [reproduced by ianam above :)]? Well, that’s nothing more than lying by omission.

  17. #17 foram
    November 15, 2011

    Steve and Steve (107 & 108),

    Just to clarify completely, the strikethrough version is my own précis, not some text that has been literally edited by the Oz. The article actually makes sense if you ignore the headline. How any reading of the body of the piece can suggest CO2 as hero rather than villain is beyond me, yet that meaning is spelled out even more clearly in the url than the headline itself:

    “…/carbon-dioxide-may-save-some-coral-reefs-from-climate-change-impact/…”

    Simple lack of reading comprehension, perhaps?

  18. #18 SteveC
    November 15, 2011

    @ Hasis – like Curry, Pielke Jr seems to be “engaged in a race to the bottom” as the phrase goes. I haven’t followed it thoroughly but did dip into discussions at SkS and elsewhere and then had to do more important things, like walk the dog.

    @ foram – I did realise it was you filling in the blanks, it’s just a pity none of the OO faithful will ever bother reading any further than the headline, let alone beyond the article itself. Of course even suggesting the OO ought to lift its game in reportign on climate science is (in their view) tantamount to repression of free speech.

  19. #19 Steve L
    November 15, 2011

    I suspect what they are going to argue is: growth of sea grass is good for nearby reefs; sea grass is a plant; CO2 is good for plant growth; therefore CO2 additions to the atmosphere are good for reefs. About the same as arguing: shade provision reduces skin cancer; shady trees are plants; plant growth requires sun light; thus increased sunlight reduces skin cancer.

  20. #20 Hank Roberts
    November 15, 2011

    Let’s see what they can do with this then:

    DOUBTS LIFE ON MARS
    But Prof. Arrhenius Thinks Venus May Have a Low Form of Life.
    Special to The New York Times. May 01, 1911, Page 3

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 30. — Prof. Svante August Arrhenius, the Swedish astronomer, who is now lecturing at Harvard, does not believe (like Prof. Percival Lowell) that the planet Mars is inhabited, although he admits that life not human may exist on Venus. He differs, too, from Prof. William H. Pickering of Harvard as to the origin of the moon.

  21. #21 Olaus Petri
    November 15, 2011

    Arrhenius was also in the board of the State institute of racial biology (Uppsala, Sweden).

    So?

  22. #22 Dave Andrews
    November 15, 2011

    Wow,

    Still going through the same old arguments/topics Why don’t you do something original Tim?

  23. #23 bill
    November 15, 2011

    When Olaus gets his (long overdue?) own thread, can we call it The Petri Dish?

  24. #24 GWB's Nemesis
    November 17, 2011

    #118 – I suggest “Alas Olaus”.

  25. #25 Wow
    November 17, 2011

    Subtitled: “We punked him well, Horatio”

  26. #26 Jeremy C
    November 17, 2011

    Hanky babes,

    Nice piece about Arrhenius thinking about life on Venus.

    2 questions for you to answer:

    1. What was the general scientific consensus on life on Venus at that time
    2. What data did Arrhenius have available?

    Answers on a post card and adressed to Humphrey.b Bear please.

  27. #27 Billy Bob Hall
    November 17, 2011

    It doesn’t seem to be getting any warmer gentle-persons. When will all this ‘global warming’ start again ?

  28. #28 KiwiInOz
    November 17, 2011

    Interesting to see how Graham Lloyd (todays Oz) spins uncertainty into “it just aint happening”.

  29. #29 john byatt
    November 18, 2011

    Excellent source for all information, history, timeline etc

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

    >

  30. #30 AmandaS
    November 18, 2011

    I note The Australian’s War on Science 74 was printed today under Graham Lloyd’s byline. I also note my comment (In other words, The Australian still doesn’t understand science) was not printed. There’s a surprise…

    A

  31. #31 lord_sidcup
    November 18, 2011

    Spot the which headline comes from The Australian:

    Adapt to extreme weather or pay price, expert warns

    Climate change worsens extreme weather events

    Report: Climate change means more frequent droughts, floods to come

    Climate Change Report: Weather Extremes Increasing

    Review fails to support climate change link

    WTF??

  32. #32 Bernard J.
    November 19, 2011

    [Lord_sidcup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5881502).

    Are each of those headlines referring to the same report?

  33. #33 lord_sidcup
    November 19, 2011

    Bernard

    All those headline relate to the IPCC summary for policy makers published yesterday.

  34. #34 Bernard J.
    November 19, 2011

    [Lord-sidcup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5893640).

    O.
    M.
    F.
    Mythic deity.

    To paraphrase [Inigo Montoya](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5893640), as he would say to the hacks and the editors of the Oz…

    >You keep using that [heport]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  35. #35 Acacia
    November 19, 2011

    I couldn’t be bothered to continue to plough through [Graham LLOyd’s spin](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/test-of-climate-politics/story-e6frg6xf-122619944101) after this paragraph:
    >But of more immediate interest will be how the official document deals with high levels of uncertainty outlined in the draft and presumably detailed in the full report. Also contentious are the draft findings that while extreme weather events have taken a heavier human and financial toll, this has been due mainly to altered patterns in human settlement and the greater exposure of infrastructure rather than worse weather.

  36. #37 Tom R
    November 20, 2011

    The oo continues to fail at literacy, particularly when ‘reporting’ on climate change

    “Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report”

    Unknown?

    http://newsdelimited.blogspot.com/2011/11/you-keep-using-that-word.html

  37. #38 David Duff
    November 22, 2011

    Oi! Wake up ‘down there’! Climategate II just hit and it’s even worse than the first time.

    It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul“.

    I’m afraid your ’cause’, as Michael Mann describes it, is up the creek without a paddle or even any windpower!

  38. #39 chek
    November 22, 2011

    Except of course, just like the first time, it isn’t, you desperate little buffoon.

    What your playmasters do know very well however is your knuckle dragging consumer profile. ‘New’, ‘improved’, ‘better than the last nothing effort’ is guaranteed to get the droolers drooling, with nary even a hint of substance.

    Allow me to predict right now that Climategate 2 will be twice the disappointment for you that Titanic 2 would have been. Another round of smoke without fire with added wind and piss leaving not even a damp patch as an aftermath.

    The disappointed droolers will however remain convinced that ‘Climategate 3 – The Yawning’ will be the One, when to all and sundry with sparking synapses it was obvious the franchise was a dud from the get go.

  39. #40 David Duff
    November 22, 2011

    Cling to that hope, Chek, go on, close your eyes and put your hands over your ears then you will not see or hear this prize specimen, just one of thousands:

    “<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]”

    Well, ‘who’da thunk it?’ Er, well, me, actually!

  40. #41 Acacia
    November 22, 2011

    The Conversation has an article by Roger Jones titled [‘Spinning uncertainty? The IPCC extreme weather report and the media’](http://theconversation.edu.au/spinning-uncertainty-the-ipcc-extreme-weather-report-and-the-media-4402?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+November+23+2011&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+November+23+2011+CID_c9708df829560bd59ad5cb5d09ad6bd8&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Spinning+uncertainty+The+IPCC+extreme+weather+report+and+the+media).

    After Graham LLoyd’s multiple spin efforts, an editorial, several letters and a Cut and Paste beat up it would nice to see this article get wider circulation. Roger Jones concludes with :
    > On climate change, The Australian is behaving like the media equivalent of a fog machine. Its unreliable reporting should be avoided by those with an interest in factual scientific information.

  41. #42 jakerman
    November 22, 2011

    Worse? I don’t know, you lot are constantly bad, so I can’t say denialist agents efforts this time are worse.

    Michael Mann [sums it up](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562) best:

    >*”truly pathetic”… “Agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change,”… “So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat.”*

  42. #43 David Duff
    November 22, 2011

    Bluster, bluster, bluster, Jakes, old chap, now take your courage in both hands and read these words from your ‘Dear Leader':

    “<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
    reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

    <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause” (My italics)

    “The cause“? I thought this was a scientific endeavour not a religious crusade. Say it ain’t so!

  43. #44 luther blissett
    November 22, 2011

    Quoting David Duff: “close your… hands over… this prize specimen.”

    I think we have a Sandusky here.

  44. #45 chek
    November 22, 2011

    Duffer, what appears to be beyond your comprehension is that the science has not been faulted despite decades of peer review by thousands of scientists who actually know.

    Not even all your Pielkes and Currys and Tols el can do no more than fart listlessly in the general direction of the IPCC and the climate science community.

    There is nothing that your stolen email soap operas CAN disclose, despite yout feverish fantasies to the contrary.
    But it does keep you hapless mugs strung along panting as if virgins desperate for a sniff of a stripper’s knickers.
    Pathetic and clueless in other words.

  45. #46 lord_sidcup
    November 22, 2011

    Climategate II just hit and it’s even worse than the first time.

    Must be a reason they sat on ‘worse’ emails for 2 years. Incompetence, lack of commitment to the ’cause’, desparation. Take you pick.

  46. #47 lord_sidcup
    November 22, 2011

    Climategate II just hit and it’s even worse than the first time.

    Must be a reason they release the ‘worst’ emails 2 years on. Incompetence, lack of commitment to the ’cause’, desparation. Take your pick.

  47. #48 lord_sidcup
    November 22, 2011

    Whoops, sorry for the double posting.

  48. #49 Composer99
    November 22, 2011

    David Duff is like the Brett Hull of Deltoid, only at least Brett Hull was a subject matter expert in his field.

  49. #50 David Duff
    November 22, 2011

    @Luther 138: Well done, Luther, you cut some key bits out in order to reach the conclusion you wanted. Where on earth did you learn that?

    @chek 139: Judged by these, er, embarrassing e-mails there does not appear to have been much science, Chek, just lots of almost religious fervour in favour of “the cause”!

    M’Lord, there, I suspect, you have made a great eror of judgment. Those e-mails have been held back deliberately in my opinion because the “very naughty boy” who is doing it knows that a steady drip drip feed will be much more effective – not least because it will catch out all the bluster and fibs that were offered up in defence the last time. Also, m’ Lord, please note that there are several thousand more yet to be released, so tell your ‘Dear Leaders’ to be very careful what they say.

    @composer99: Who is Brett Hull? Nah, on second thoughts, don’t bother.

  50. #51 Lionel A
    November 22, 2011

    Duff. Attention!

    Did I tell you to stand at ease?

    ‘Oi! Wake up ‘down there’! Climategate II just hit and it’s even worse than the first time.’

    Oh how stupid can you be. Back to ‘spud basing’ and ‘boot bulling’ for you.

    Grow up. Oops silly me, of course it is far to late for you to do that, old dogs and new tricks an’ all.

  51. #52 David Duff
    November 22, 2011

    By the way, before I totter off for my cup of cocoa and bed, can any of you ‘stinks ‘n’ swots’ lot tell me if this describes the, er, scientific method:

    “<4165> Jones: what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
    I reckon this can be saved by careful wording”

  52. #53 chek
    November 22, 2011

    Duffer spluttered: “Judged by these, er, embarrassing e-mails carefully selected out of context quotes there does not appear to have been much science”

    There, fixed that for you Duffer. And the removed science by your anti-science brigade would appear to be rather the whole point, you moron. But continue: “just lots of almost religious fervour in favour of “the cause””!

    Careful Duffer, you’re projecting your fantasies again.

    By the way, before I totter off for my cup of cocoa and bed, can any of you ‘stinks ‘n’ swots’ lot tell me if this describes the, er, scientific method:

    “<4165> Jones: what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording”

    Hey, here’s an idea! When you figure out which Jones is featured, why not email him, tell him you’re reading his stolen correspondence and that there’s a matter you feel he needs to clarify. Of course being a great big cowardly Duffer you never will and you’ll never know. You’re just too thrilled to let those pronouns mean whatever you want them to mean. [What a maroon.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5927538)

  53. #54 bill
    November 22, 2011

    Wow ‘the cause’. 3 times. Out of context.

    That’s it? This is ‘worse’ than the last time?

    Your ‘gotchas’ could scarcely be more pathetic, Duff. Let’s face it, these barely-reheated Thanksgiving leftovers from 2 years ago will only appeal to those who are already stuffed.

  54. #55 jakerman
    November 22, 2011

    Duff, [you just made](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5927474)the point Mann [called your lot out for](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5927387):

    >*”truly pathetic”… “they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change,”[…] “So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, […] out-of-context snippets of personal emails”.

    Check, check, check. All the boxes filled by Duff.

  55. #56 jakerman
    November 22, 2011

    [Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5927882):
    >Well done, Luther, you cut some key bits out in order to reach the conclusion you wanted. Where on earth did you learn that?

    How ironic Duff, how absolutely ironic. You really are blinded to your own actions and to that of those you support arn’t you?

  56. #57 jakerman
    November 22, 2011

    >these barely-reheated Thanksgiving leftovers from 2 years ago will only appeal to those who are already stuffed.

    And we’ve already had multiple inquiries regarding the same people and equivalent ouragessly distorted allegatations.

    I’ll guess we’ll now see how ‘ownwed’ the mass media already are. We know that Fox will lap it up but will any real news network be fooled twice?

  57. #58 ligne
    November 22, 2011

    > <1939> Thorne/MetO: We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.

    communicating the uncertainty? being _honest_?? noooo! say it ain’t so, Peter!

    > Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary

    aha: collusion!

  58. #59 Chris O'Neill
    November 22, 2011

    Duff and dumber:

    Global cooling was stamped on by the ‘Warmers’ in the 1980s

    How dare those ‘Warmers’ stamp on global cooling before it started warming up. What did they think they were doing? Making testable predictions? How dare they.

  59. #60 Billy Bob Hall
    November 23, 2011

    Never mid that Timbo. What about Climategate II ?

    :-0

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    November 23, 2011

    So, last time it was ‘The Trick’, and this time it is ‘The Cause’, and from these simple words conspiracies are born.

    It staggers me that denialists can see horrors, terrors, and catastrophes hiding under the beds of scientists, when the real problem is inexorably creeping toward them on the backs of their own vices, ideologies, and indulgent hypocrisies.

    I hope that history is not forgiving of their shortcomings.

  61. #62 Fran Barlow
    November 27, 2011

    I assumed that in context, “helping the cause” meant “advancing public understanding of this quite challenging and abstruse body of science”. Perhaps I’m wrong, but “helping the cause” is simply a rather rhetorical way of saying “advancing a project held within the given community to be worthy”. That’s how I describe domestic activity on Saturday mornings when some seem inclined to become otherwise engaged.

    Here are some examples:

    Network Security – Is IP Telephony Helping The Cause?

    The major players in the Public Branch Exchange (PBX) market are moving rapidly towards the
    implementation of IP Telephony. What will be the effect on network security overall? Will the push to IP
    Telephony damage the good work already devoted to security networks?

    Worryingly, the author of this paper was someone called Hansen!!!

    The Liberal Party is waking up to the realisation that their leader’s insistent oppositionism is not helping the cause.

    I attended events, helped with training, and then started working with Overland Experts working expos, training, and just plain “helping the cause.” Overland Experts offers an off-road driving program taught by a biologist and teacher, not just some guy that loves the mud! As a volunteer, I became addicted to the lifestyle and gained valuable knowledge of off-road and overland travel. Overland Experts has spent years of dedication to perfecting the process of overland travel in a safe and environmentally safe way.

    This chap meant cause to refer to his shared passion for the lifestyle.

    (Sydney Morning Herald recently) Presumably the cause here is the objectives of the Liberal Party and their ideas. They officially have a cause of course.

    It seems that the imputation derives entirely from previous claims made by deniers that there is some sort of conspiracy amongs scientists to perpetrate sceintific fraud, in which Curry was expected to be a co-conspirator. As no such conspiracy has ever been shown and is even denied by some deniers, this attribution of malfeasance is simply another case of piling Pelion upon Ossa.

    It’s malicious tittering in flat denial of common usage, and scarcely to be distinguished intellecutally from those occasions when small children laugh when you say “bottom”. Children have an excuse and aren’t trying to subvert good public policy.

    One might add that in this as in so much that the deniers do, there is massive projection. They of course are willing to cherrypick and misrepresent data in their openly acknowledged cause (subverting public policy) and fancy that the other side must be similarly willing. It’s part of their existential paradigm of these misanthropes that the world is just as ethically bankrupt as they are.

Current ye@r *