The Australian's War on Science 59: Quote Mining

The Australian's daily column called Cut and Paste should more properly be titled Quote Mining. Look at their latest effort:

Re-insurers don't seem to think that climate change is causing an escalating number of catastrophes ...

Peer-reviewed paper by Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthe of London School of Economics and funded by re-insurers Munich Re in Global Environmental Change, November 18, 2010:

Applying both [conventional and alternative] methods to the most comprehensive existing global dataset of natural disaster loss [provided by Munich Re], in general we find no significant upward trends in normalised disaster damage over the period 1980-2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions.

But what does the very next sentence of their abstract say?:

Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already.

But if you are Cut and Paste you'll imply just that.

Wayne at Pure Poison has more, noting that Andrew Bolt got fooled by Cut and Paste (degree of difficulty 0/10).

More like this

Though of course by "natural" we're thinking of with-a-human-contribution. My text is taken from the book of Grauniad: On Friday a team of researchers in Boston calculated that even with only a 2C rise, summer temperatures now regarded as "extreme" will become normal. This is the second such…
TPMCafe summarizes yesterday in the discussosphere, focusing on a point Mark Schmitt made, that proposing detailed healthcare plans is pointless. Kevin Drum, Steve Benen, Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein all weighed in for or against laying out detailed policy plans in the campaign, and I think Ezra's…
Another Week of Climate Disruption News Sipping from the internet firehose...This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H.E.Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup(skip to bottom) January 4, 2009 Top Stories:Tennessee Coal Sludge, YD Impact Theory,…
...read the backgrounder produced by Real Climate's Rasmus Benestad. It's another example of the kind of reseach journalists need to do before writing about climate change research. Rasmus provides an excellent overview of how much we know, and how much we don't know, about the hurricane-climate…

Damn you Tim, for making me read the Australian [reaches for painkillers] :-)

A first reading of the abstract to article you have cited indicates to me that the authors are trying to develop a new method of normalizing economic losses, so that they may take account of regional differences in space, as well as accounting for the factors incorporated in the historic method of normalising economic losses. They are extremely cautious in the validity of this novel method when applied to real data; naturally though, they are attempting to use it on real economic data over the period in question.
To me the key sentence in the abstract is the following:

We introduce an alternative methodology that overcomes this problem in theory, but faces many more problems in its empirical application.

This is clearly very different to the circumstances implied by Cut-n-Fake section of the only broadsheet magazine in existence. Anyhow, maybe I'm very mistaken, it's happened before :-(

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 11 Feb 2011 #permalink

If it's really just a "Cut and Paste", The Australian won't be compelled to put their own commentary in big bold letters:

> > Re-insurers don't seem to think that climate change is causing an escalating number of catastrophes ...

It's like that conlibertarian blogger a while back who wrote a blog full of words about a bunch of pictures, and then later said,

> And they are just pictures, telling it like it is.

http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2006/03/excellent-photo-essay.html

I replied,

> Hey Mungowitz, isn't this about "pictures" which are "telling it like it is"? Then why do I see so many words that try to spin the pictures some way or other? Please, stop writing more words already and just post some more pictures.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

"The Australian's daily column called Cut and Paste should more properly be titled Quote Mining. Look at their latest effort:..."

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hmmm, i had a look-see at "their latest effort" and the link provided is actually to "Scientists and commentators make heavy weather of the Queensland cyclone"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/scientists-and-commentator…

Apparently the article is not about the thread subject, though interesting all the same.

Quoting the 'heavy weather' cut and paste article -
"...JONES: Can you or other scientists make a link with climate change? Nott: Yes, well, we know that as oceans warm, tropical cyclones will increase in intensity, but we really need to see some years of data and a change in the trend of cyclones before we can actually state that these tropical cyclones are being influenced by humans in that sense..."

A visit to the ABC record of interview and watching the video did not show that wording -
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3129538.htm

...interesting, i could very well have the wrong interview, though a further search didn't show it ???

.

By Flying Binghi (not verified) on 11 Feb 2011 #permalink

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

"...Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already..."

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Heh, i'm wondering if that's not the old 'we want to keep our funding' clause ...Why? ..methinks they gotta keep them global warming profiteers happy

"...Munich Re is also a large investor in renewable energy production..."

http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2010/2010_06_…

.

By Flying Binghi (not verified) on 11 Feb 2011 #permalink

Thanks for outing yourself as a conspiracy theorist, Binghi.

Is the link in error? or the article changed Tim?

It's hard to equate the above with the article "latest effort".

*[Oops, wrong URL. I fixed it. Tim]*

i had a look-see at "their latest effort" and the link provided is actually to ..

Try cut and paste.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

Flying Binghi.

You don't have even [a ghost of an idea about how to format quotes](http://i53.tinypic.com/2uswi8y.jpg) using html tags, do you?

You're no more informed on matters of climatological science.

And they apparently let you fly?!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

I think the "Cut and Paste" article is actually ok. Whilst Quote mining for your Quote mine you left out the prior ABC1 statement that this countered.

*"Big international insurers are mopping up after more than 850 global weather catastrophes in 2010, and **they say there's no doubt**: global warming is destabilising the climate."*

This **is** somewhat at odds with the Neumayer/Barthel paper, as quoted above, and published in October last year with support from **Big international insurers**.

Without re-pasting the quotes from the abstract above, and paraphrasing;

They found no "evidence" to support such a claim, their caveat being, just because we didn't find any evidence, doesn't mean to say that it isn't happening. - Which is fair enough in my view.

Without evidence, saying **"there is no doubt"**, sounds like a statement of faith!

If I were an Aussie, I'd call it "The American" - otherwise, we'd toss the bastard out. "The Ex-Australian" works, too.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

Yeah, I think this might be the weakest example in the otherwise enlightening and entertaining War On Science series.

GSW,

You should download the report, particularly with an eye to the following:

>Figure 8: Annual frequency count of geophysical and weather-related disasters

>Figure 9: Annual frequency count of major geophysical and weather-related disasters

Regardless of the adjusted economic impact estimated by the study; regardless that they don't adjust for improved building standards and improvements in protective infrastructure as the development of wealth into areas of increased risk has proceeded; __there is no doubt__, in terms of both sheer numbers and relative intensity, weather related disastrous events are increasing since 1980 at a statistically significant rate.

Note that all of this relates to the adaptive capacity of those of comparative wealth and nothing about those poor people whose lives are of little economic impact who likely have been driven into areas of greater risk without the wherewithal to make such adaptive protections.

Consider the ethical and sociological consequences of turning a blind eye to physical facts in favor of mere economics.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

@Luminous,

Had a look at the report, you are correct figures 8 and 9, do appear to show a ~x2 increase in the **number** of All(8) and Major(9) weather events over the period.

I'm still trying to get my head around it, some of the language is quite tortuous;

"In particular, one cannot infer from our analysis that
there have not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural disasters."

Very little on what you can infer however. Not entirely sure where they are coming from on this. I'll keep trying ;)

Shorter Flying Binghi: It's OK for The Australian to lie about a paper's abstract because I have a conspiracy theory.

Shorter GSW: It's OK for The Australian to lie about a paper's abstract because, oh look, here's a bigger lie!

@frank

wha?

This may be off topic. But the closest I can come to logical evaluation of the paper cited is;

Econometrics are not a reliable proxy for establishing that Climate Change either is, or is not, a problem.

Anybody?

Cut and Paste say,

>Re-insurers don't seem to think that climate change is causing an escalating number of catastrophes ...

Munich Re [says](http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2011/2011_01_…),

>the high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change.

@Shinsko

"Peer reviewed paper" vs "Press release" -- shame on you!

"Peer reviewed paper" vs "Press release"

OK we all agree The Australian is Garbage.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

GSW:

Without evidence, saying "there is no doubt", sounds like a statement of faith!

So you think Cut and Paste would have included the evidence that this claim was based on.

Riiiiiight.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

Shinsko's (#17) link to the Munich Re press release is interesting to follow. The Chile earthquake identified in that press release as causing relatively few fatalities (especially compared to the Haiti earthquake), and that this was due in part to the very strict building codes Chile has, as an earthquake-prone country. Planning for disasters (of a known type, of course) may end up costing more for implementation than a simple plan would, but the benefits are there when the crisis occurs.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

Binghi, if the link was wrong, it certainly isn't now. Though I'm sure Tim can clear that one up. It points to the exact article he was talking about.

It is crystal clear that The Australian has cherry-picked to deliberately mislead. If you look up the abstract, as per Tim's link, it is very obvious what The Australian has done.

So that's the thread topic dealt with. Cool.

Let's move to your next bit:

Heh, i'm wondering if that's not the old 'we want to keep our funding' clause ...Why? ..methinks they gotta keep them global warming profiteers happy

Purely conspiratorial. No supporting evidence whatsoever. Utter speculation.

I personally would like to know if you deride, ridicule, and believe that all scientific endeavours are dodgy. How far, exactly, do your conspiracy theories go?

I mean, whether it's climate science, particle physics, astronomical research, cancer research, cot-death research, or whatever, don't they all want to keep their research funding? So are cot-death researchers covering up the discovery of the cause so they can continue being funded? Does the Large Hadron Collider not actually do anything, but we are being kept in the dark about it? All the particle physicists conspiring to keep their funding? Amazing new photos of the surface of Mars are taken in a Pasadena studio just so NASA can keep its Mars funding going?

How far do your funding conspiracy theories go, Binghi? And if they only apply to climate science but no other scientific or medical research conducted by tens of thousands of scientists all over the world in many hundreds of research facilities, why is that so?

And as is always the case in the daft conspiracy theories, if climate scientists and computer modellers were sufficiently clever and unscrupulous to fake the data/modelling and get their fakery past every national scientific body on the planet, why wouldn't they fake it in favour of the status quo/business as usual.

No lives would have to be changed, the wealthiest people on the planet and their governments are happy, the people getting screwed are people the rich don't care about so no problems there -- the money just rolling in for those grant grubbing scoundrels and their corporate shills. Why in the name of sense would one pitch a hard program for the sake of the relative pennies they might get out of people interested in protecting the planet and wear the concentrated abuse they have suffered into the bargain?

If they are nearly all dishonest -- what would be the downside?

They can't be that smart if they are mainly after the money and the celebrity.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 12 Feb 2011 #permalink

@Shinsko

No, I didn't miss that bit.

Monckton was paid $100,000 to shill crap here. God knows how much he was paid in America.

But, no, it's the *climate scientists* lying for money.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Their cutting and pasting leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, they left off the last letter of the researcher's name. Amateurs.

Global reinsurance giant Swiss Re has no doubts about climate change. It says natural disasters have become more costly:
'This was mainly due to economic development, population growth and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas, as well as climate change.'
And:
' "The frequency of catastrophic events in the Australasian region has more than tripled over the past 30 years, with the loss potential also being on the rise," a spokesman said.'
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/us-australia-disaster-insuran…](http://url.com/ "Title")

By Anonymous (not verified) on 13 Feb 2011 #permalink

"Without evidence, saying "there is no doubt", sounds like a statement of faith!"

Good job there's plenty of evidence, then.

Funnily enough, it's the anti-AGW faithful like GSW who have no evidence. "GCR's are doing it!" (no evidence: CLOUD showing no discernable effect", "It's cooling!" (no evidence: trends over time periods that show a possible cooling are too short to show a trend), "It's all a scam by greens" (no evidence, just paranoid delusion).

> And as is always the case in the daft conspiracy theories,
> if climate scientists and computer modellers were
> sufficiently clever and unscrupulous to fake the
> data/modelling and get their fakery past every national
> scientific body on the planet, why wouldn't they fake it in
> favour of the status quo/business as usual.

This seems pretty obvious. I hope you aren't basing what you believe on that premise. Imagine that a well known, highly regarded scientist comes to you and says "I have studied the formation of widgets and everything we have ever known about them seems to be confirmed. There is nothing new here. Please fund me with an additional $150,000 to continue to study them."

Now, imagine that same highly regarded scientist comes to you and says "I have studied the formation of widgets and they are far more complicated and dangerous than previously imagined. Something is going on here and it poses far reaching questions that affect the safety of our species on this planet. Please fund me with an additional $150,000 to continue to study them."

Now, before everyone jumps on me, I'm just answering a simple questions here. I'm not impugning the ethics of anyone, just responding to a hypothetical question... Which scenario causes you to reach for your wallet?

"...a well known, highly regarded scientist comes to you and says "I have studied the formation of widgets and everything we have ever known about them seems to be confirmed. There is nothing new here. Please fund me with an additional $150,000 to continue to study them."

Now, imagine that same highly regarded scientist comes to you and says "I have studied the formation of widgets and they are far more complicated and dangerous than previously imagined. Something is going on here and it poses far reaching questions that affect the safety of our species on this planet. Please fund me with an additional $150,000 to continue to study them."

... Which scenario causes you to reach for your wallet?

Err, the first one.

Presuming I'm big in widgets.

"It's official! Top scientists say widgets are grrreat!"

I wouldn't choose either one. There's not enough information there to make a decision. One example; I'd have to verify the scientists claims (does the peer reviewed literature back them up?). Another is I'd like to see a proposal on what exactly they wish to study - see [NSF proposal guide](http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpgprint.pdf) for an example.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

via Mike, #22;

Binghi, if the link was wrong, it certainly isn't now. Though I'm sure Tim can clear that one up. It points to the exact article he was talking about.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Mike, it's a minor detail, the link were wrong - i checked it a couple of times.

.

...anyway

.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

via Mike, #22;

Purely conspiratorial. No supporting evidence whatsoever. Utter speculation.
I personally would like to know if you deride, ridicule, and believe that all scientific endeavours are dodgy. How far, exactly, do your conspiracy theories go?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Mike, when ah writes "methinks" that is what i understand to be one of the web wide accepted ways of indicating that what i'm writing about is my own thoughts, i.e. it is my own 'speculation' so to say.

Mike, as to the rest of your, errr, claims...methinks you are grasping at straws there....perhaps a weak attempt to imply i'm something that aligns with your beliefs, what you desperately want to believe....

.

By Flying Binghi (not verified) on 14 Feb 2011 #permalink

@wow

"It's all a scam by greens" (no evidence, just paranoid delusion).

Agreed.

Binghi.

I see that [you're still not acquainted with the wisdom of learning](http://i51.tinypic.com/5zpahe.jpg) how to do basic formatting, and especially of quotations.

That learning thang's a slippery sucker, isn't it?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2011 #permalink

Binghi, I know it's your own personal speculation.

But why? Why are you speculating that it's a broad trait among climate scientists that they just make stuff up to keep their funding?

Why don't you speculate the same thing about all scientific research around the world?

Is there a reason it's only climate science that comes under suspicion, or do you feel that all the other research endeavours I mentioned are equally suspect? And if so, what are you doing about it?

What I desperately want to believe Binghi, is that you can objectively look at the plethora of available evidence on climate change and notice how many different sources it comes from, how thoroughly it is critiqued, and how widely it is accepted by people who actually know what they're talking about.

I also desperately want to believe that you can sort through the fud and obfuscation of stuff preached by people who don't actually know what they're talking about, and who have been shown not to have the faintest clue what they're talking about. You know, the Christopher Moncktons, Anthony Watts, Harrison Schmitts, etc.

I also desperately want to believe that you can see right through the misleading cherry-picking being done by certain news organisations. The ones who take a couple of lines of a quote by a scientist, but leave off the real important bit at the end which completely changes the context, in order to deliberately creat a "doubt" about some particular aspect of climate change where that doubt doesn't actually exist.

But alas, my desperate wishes are being dashed at every opportunity.

@Mike

"The ones who take a couple of lines of a quote by a scientist, but leave off the real important bit at the end which completely changes the context"

To be fair Mike, that isn't what happened here.

It wasn't a "quote",it was from a peer reviewed paper. Also, to say that they found no increase in weather event related losses over the last 30yrs is a fair summary of that paper.

The caveat does not change the "context" in anyway- it says what it says.

OK, that bit of my comment was intended to be more generic regarding the obfuscation and misinformation written in The Australian and certain other media outlets. But seeing as you don't see the problem in this specific example, let's look closer at it. The caveat is a significant one. And the bits they omit are very significant. They (The Australian) state that:

"Re-insurers don't seem to think that climate change is causing an escalating number of catastrophes ..."

Then they go on to cherry-pick a single line which supports this:

".....in general we find no significant upward trends in normalized disaster damage over the period 1980 to 2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions"

The entire thrust of their cherry-pick is to tell or imply to the reader that climate change is having no effect, and will have no effect, on natural disasters. Here are the omitted bits which change the slant substantially:

"Climate change is likely to lead to an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of certain types of natural hazards, if not globally, then at least in certain regions."

Significant statement from the exact same article, don't you think? They quite bluntly state that yes, climate change is likely to lead to more/greater natural disasters. But do you seriously think that is implied in the cherry-picked article?

"Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already."

Also significant, don't you think? A very clear statement from the exact same article that puts a strong caveat - an uncertainty - on what was quoted in The Australian. Yet no such uncertainty in that statement is implied in The Australian's report. Almost the opposite, I'd say.

"Moreover, it may still be far too early to detect a trend if human-induced climate change has only just started and will gain momentum over time."

And yet another caveat implying more uncertainty about this conclusion! Dutifully omitted by The Australian. They are saying that the fact they didn't detect any trend during this re-analysis may well be meaningless in the greater scheme of things if climate change has just started and will accelerate.

You honestly don't believe this changes the context of what was reported in The Australian? I mean, seriously?

@Mike,

If they don't have evidence for the Claim (the Re insurers) why should they think it? A statement of belief perhaps? You can add as many caveats as you like to the result, but if you don't find evidence ...

The result, disappointing as it may be, cannot be "improved" with speculation and the use of double negatives.

GSW @40: Which particular bit of

"Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already."

don't you understand?

@Zoot

The wording is rather tortuous don't you think?

"**one cannot infer** from our analysis that there have **definitely not been** more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards"

I hope you don't interpret this as;

One can infer ... definitely has been... ?

Both statements are meaninglessly bizarre in relation to the findings of the paper. In general, I would recommend to authors that they avoid such constructs; they make the paper hard to read, and are little more than 'comfort' statements.

Bill #30: neither scenario will cause me to reach for my wallet. I need to hear and see a darn side more than a secondhand caryard sales pitch before I go thinking about wallets and opening them. To put the question right back at you, what would you do?

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 14 Feb 2011 #permalink

GSW @ 42L "The wording is rather tortuous don't you think?"

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

"I hope you don't interpret this as;
One can infer ... definitely has been... ?"

Can't speak for zoot, but to my simple mind "one cannot infer" is exactly not the same as "one can infer", likewise "definitely/ not been". It's simply indicating that anyone who tries to make certain inferences from their report is on dicky ground.

Be sure to let us know how you fare out there in that quicksand BTW...

@SteveC

As I said, a 'comfort' statement that plays well to some....., but lacking in substance nevertheless ;)

GSW @ 42: "The wording is rather tortuous don't you think?"
A bit complicated, but easily understood by the average speaker of English. How would you have phrased it?

#35 Agreed.

So you agree that the belief by large groups of deniers that AGW is a green conspiracy is paranoid.

Well done.

> Now, before everyone jumps on me, I'm just answering a simple questions here. I'm not impugning the ethics of anyone, just responding to a hypothetical question...

Ah, the Beckian Gambit.

Now, here are some other hypotheticals.

What would you think if you heard someone say "I don't like being blamed for AGW, it's against my relgion and I don't like government interfering in my business, therefore I can prove AGW is wrong, if only there weren't a great conspiracy to silence the truth"?

Would you think "paranoid nut"? How about "Well, they don't want to pay the cost of cleaning up"?

Given that the oil industry is huge, why aren't there vastly more scientists out to lap up some of that money?

Given that the research budget is tight, why are astrophysicists chemists biologists all agreeing with the climate scientists who will be taking THEIR grant money from them?

I'm not impugning your ethics, just asking hypotheticals. Like "are you a lying scumbag?" I'm just asking. Because you haven't actually said you AREN'T a lying scumbag, have you?

So GSW, back to my point, as explained:

I can't honestly see how you could imply that article in The Australian is not deliberately downplaying the thrust of the paper, or even being outright (and quite deliberately) misleading.

The research paper says it found no "significant" upward trends "in general", and The Australian leaves it at that, with the accompanying impression that predictions of greater disasters are all a crock. Except that impression is clearly not what the research paper implies at all, when you read the rest of it as noted above. The paper clearly notes that a) yes more severe and/or frequent disasters could be expected, and b) there are limitations on their findings which should not be interpreted as saying that such effects will not become apparent in the future.

This is classic denialism. And it works well on people who will never bother actually looking up the abstract and reading it for themselves.

@Mike

I think you are quite genuine about this and there is not much in what you say that I disagree with.

The basic premise of the paper (don't have it to hand) was that you would expect more frequent/intense disasters as a result of Global Warming/CC. (we agree on this)

Looking at the insurance loss data however, the authors found no significant climate related 'signal' in their analysis. (we agree on this, I think)

Having not found the 'signal' the authors 'speculated' as to why this might be. Speculated-in the sense that no further analysis was provided, only a list of unsubstantiated maybes, which may, or may not be true. (we agree on this?)

I personally don't have a problem with this sort of thing appearing in academic papers, it can be quite interesting and enlightening to read, I'd rather see it, than have it 'censored' (not the right word), but you do need to recognize it for what it is. It is not in itself part of the 'finding'. (we probably don't agree on this)

Also, if your aim is to do your 'Science' and publish your results, it's best not to be too controversial, a few warm words (pun intended), here and there, can make the process a little easier in the current 'Politicized' climate.

> What would you think if you heard someone say "I don't like being blamed for AGW, it's against my relgion and I don't like government interfering in my business, therefore I can prove AGW is wrong, if only there weren't a great conspiracy to silence the truth"?

Yeah, probably wingnut. Whats that got to do with what I said again? And, I didn't actually start the topic of conversation, so maybe the better question is what does that have to do with the question from the person I quoted?

> Given that the oil industry is huge, why aren't there vastly more scientists out to lap up some of that money?

Uh, I don't know. How many scientists are currently trying to lap up oil money? How much money is spent every year on research into 'oil related' topics? How many scientists do you think there should be? How much money do you think there should be?

> Given that the research budget is tight, why are astrophysicists chemists biologists all agreeing with the climate scientists who will be taking THEIR grant money from them?

I don't know. Have you tried asking them?

> I'm not impugning your ethics, just asking hypotheticals. Like "are you a lying scumbag?" I'm just asking. Because you haven't actually said you AREN'T a lying scumbag, have you?

I don't get it... Is this hypothetical or not? It seems hypothetical, since you are right, I haven't said that I'm not a lying scumbag. I could be lying, but I haven't actually stated anything as a fact. Once I state something that could be proven or disproven, isn't that when my lying nature would come into play? After all, I just was doing your job and calling out someone who made a statement that doesn't really make any sense. I didn't have to lie to do that. I'll try to sneak a couple lies into my next comment, I promise.

Aj,

> Err, the first one.

> Presuming I'm big in widgets.

I presume you are 'big' on the sun rising every day. My research has shown that the sun rises every day, in a predictable manner. I see absolutely no reason to think that that will change in any way and that there is nothing to be concerned about re: the Sun. Please send me $100,000 so I can spend more time looking at the sun rise every day and making sure Poor Richard's predictions are correct. I'll follow up with my paypal account information...

> Whats that got to do with what I said again?

Hey, I'm just hypothesising here.

> My research has shown that the sun rises every day,

No proof it will tomorrow.

> in a predictable manner. I see absolutely no reason to think that that will change in any way

So you've closed your mind to alternatives?

I take it you can prove the sun rises tomorrow, yes? I mean, actually predict, yes?

> So you've closed your mind to alternatives?

> I take it you can prove the sun rises tomorrow, yes? I mean, actually predict, yes?

No, I can't prove that. What makes you think I can prove that? Did I say I can prove that? Did I imply I can prove that? Are you some sort of lying scumbag? You haven't stated that you aren't a lying scumbag, have you?

I just said I wanted you to pay me to do more research. I'm sorry if what I wrote was above your reading comprehension. I tried to keep it simple... Maybe I'm the lying scumbag! That must be it.

>*Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already.*

That is a very significant omission in their analysis. Building standards have been [tested and improved significantly](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/towns-building-standards-put-…). Hence leaving out the effect of these defensive measures leave the analysis deeply biased.

Cyclone Tracey was a Cat. 3 cyclone with wind gusts of 240km/h, and it destroyed [70% of buildings and 80% of homes in Darwin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Tracy). Cyclone Yasi was Cat. 5 with [wind gusts of 300 km/h](http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/yasi/8205143/no-reports-of-deaths-i…) And the damage casued by Yazi was much lower. In the worst hit area (Tulley) [initial estimates](http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/yasi/8205143/no-reports-of-deaths-i…) in the heat of the moment were:

>*"anywhere between 20 and 50 per cent of the houses in Tully have got structural damage of some degree or another, some of them quite extensive"*

Where any destroyed? 80% were in the weaker cyclone prior to new building regulations.

>*Re-insurers don't seem to think that climate change is causing an escalating number of catastrophes ...*

That is plain wrong, as demonstrated by Tim

*Peer-reviewed paper by Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthe* produced a deeply biased result by excluding the effect of defensive building regulations. This bias is highly favored by delayers and denialists like Bolt and his fanatics.

Bill, are you saying the sun rising is as predictable as climate?

In that case, what do you predict is going to happen to the climate over the next thirty years? Next thousand? Next million?

Never mind all this my good puppet-skin friends. How about the request to audit the BOM. Good thing I say. :-)

By Billy Bob Hall (not verified) on 15 Feb 2011 #permalink

methinks they gotta keep them global warming profiteers happy

Methinks you are ignorant, unintelligent, and ethically bankrupt. Unlike yours, my thoughts are actually based on evidence and logic.

I'm still trying to get my head around it, some of the language is quite tortuous;

"In particular, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural disasters."

It's common language in scientific papers, readily understood by intelligent people.

Very little on what you can infer however.

That might have something to do with the fact that there's little that you can infer -- something apparently beyond the comprehension, or desire to comprehend, of Andrew Bolt. That too is common in scientific research. We often do research with the hope that it will be revealing, but it doesn't always turn out that way. Science is a cumulative process and lack of results still tells us something and may help direct further research.

Given that the research budget is tight, why are astrophysicists chemists biologists all agreeing with the climate scientists who will be taking THEIR grant money from them?

I don't know.

That could be a consequence of stupidity. Regardless, it does seem to challenge your model, so your response indicates intellectual dishonesty.

Please send me $100,000 so I can spend more time looking at the sun rise every day and making sure Poor Richard's predictions are correct.

If this is meant to be an analogy to climate research, it reinforces the stupidity hypothesis. In any case, it's clear that you have nothing useful to contribute to the views of intelligent people.

> No, I can't prove that. What makes you think I can prove that?

Ah, the clueless gambit. This:

> My research has shown that the sun rises every day,

Does that. Funnily enough, you didn't even read that when it was the very next line above (so you would have had to skip it to miss it) in the same post.

> I just said I wanted you to pay me to do more research.

So you ARE a scumbag. You just said that you're willing to do fake research in return for money. Go and ask Texaco, they have a pot of $100,000 for anyone making a paper that will go in a prestigious journal that disproves AGW.

Funnily enough, no takers.

Maybe it's because AGW is happening so proof of it being false is hard to come by unless you're willing to lie.

Hey, I'm just hypthesising here.

I presume you are 'big' on the sun rising every day. My research has shown that the sun rises every day, in a predictable manner. I see absolutely no reason to think that that will change in any way and that there is nothing to be concerned about re: the Sun. Please send me $100,000 so I can spend more time looking at the sun rise every day and making sure Poor Richard's predictions are correct. I'll follow up with my paypal account information...

Nope, sorry Bill. See thereâs no incentive for me there, Iâm a widgets kind of a guy.

What you need to do is find someone who makes their profit by assuring their customers of the earthâs continuing rotation; I suggest you practice your Latin and try giving the Vatican a call.

But if you really want to you can give me your paypal details anyway, I promise to only use the information for good.

> Bill, are you saying the sun rising is as predictable as climate?

> In that case, what do you predict is going to happen to the climate over the next thirty years? Next thousand? Next million?

Interesting that rather than wait for my answer, you presume the worst and then use your presumption to ask a loaded question. I say that the sun rising is a significant part of our climate and as such, certain things about our climate can be predicted with the same certainty that you can use to predict that the sun will rise again for the next thousand or million years. I get the feeling that you think you comment was profound or meant to trap me in some way. If that is true, please explain in what way.

> What you need to do is find someone who makes their profit by assuring their customers of the earthâs continuing rotation; I suggest you practice your Latin and try giving the Vatican a call.

Odd, I was under the impression that the Vatican went out of their way to convince their customers that they need to spend their lives preparing for the end of the world, not its continued existance... "But of that day and hour, no one knows" (depending on your translation). You need to practice your smugness to get a little better at it...

>> No, I can't prove that. What makes you think I can prove that?

>Ah, the clueless gambit. This:

>> My research has shown that the sun rises every day,

> Does that. Funnily enough, you didn't even read that when it was the very next line above (so you would have had to skip it to miss it) in the same post.

I get the feeling you are confused... For some reason, I get the feeling you think that "I get up and go to work ever day" means the same thing as "I will get up and go to work every day forever". It doesn't. Great thing about being clueless, it goes around...

> You just said that you're willing to do fake research in return for money.

Really? Please explain what was fake about what I said? I know it is easier in a room full of people who agree with you to call me names, but just for fun, actually explain why you said I want to do "fake research". And what does "fake research" mean?

> If this is meant to be an analogy to climate research, it reinforces the stupidity hypothesis. In any case, it's clear that you have nothing useful to contribute to the views of intelligent people.

It isn't. Your intentional misunderstanding of what I said may get others here to agree with you, but it doesn't actually make you look any smarter. What you are referring to was actually my response to a stupid comment earlier in this thread. That thought that a researcher who wants to keep the gravy train going would publish unsurprising results is just stupid. You can only intentionally misunderstand me so many times after I go out of my way to tell both what I mean *AND* what I don't mean without making yourself look stupid. I guess it is up to you to decide for yourself where you think that line in the sand really lies...

Bill,

It's clear that IMHO you don't understand how science works. You sound like a typical denier - coughing up the usual nonsense about 'gravy trains' without one iota of understanding about how research is funded. First of all, you give the impression that most scientists live or die on the basis of grant funding. Whereas grants give us the ability to train a new generation of scientists, many of us do our own research and only see grants as a way of attracting intelligent and motivated graduates to do further research. Second, given the fact that most of the 'elected' governments in the west are to the right politically, it seems to me that anyone bucking the strong scientific consensus on climate change would stand a good chance of getting funded. Third, there's a heck of a lot of money floating around the climate change denial lobby these days, given the fact that the pockets of the fossil fuel lobby tend to be a lot deeper than those of government. And since these industries have a vested interest in denial, its no small wonder that huge amounts of money are flowing into far-right think tanks, astroturf lobby groups using aggressive mimicry, and public relation firms. And let us not forget those bought-and-paid-for scientists on the corporate payroll, as well as the millions of dollars donated to campaign funds and the coffers of politicians anxious to spread the gospel of doubt. So if you want to understand what a REAL gravy train is, then follow this money.

Frankly, speaking as a scientist, I get fed up reading comments from people who constantly raise the 'gravy-train' canard without understanding that without research funding there will be no graduate programs in important fields of research and thus no future generation of scientists. I am a senior scientist and I do a lot of my own research anyway. If one wants to become wealthy then becoming a university lecturer/scientist is not the way to do it. We do it because we love research and are dedicated to our fields of endeavor. Most importantly, I never see the 'gravy-train' smear levied against those receiving huge amounts of corporate funding to deny climate change. Why not?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

Odd, I was under the impression that the Vatican went out of their way to convince their customers that they need to spend their lives preparing for the end of the world, not its continued existance... "But of that day and hour, no one knows" (depending on your translation).

You were also under the impression that no one would ever pay for further research unless it was sold on the back of impending doom. So I guess we can add Catholicism to the growing list of things which you make broad and incorrect assumptions about.

You need to practice your smugness to get a little better at it...

Believe me, when talking to you itâs trying not to be smug thatâs the challenge.

If one wants to become wealthy then becoming a university lecturer/scientist is not the way to do it. We do it because we love research and are dedicated to our fields of endeavor.

Yes, that's just so typical of you and your scientific ilk, Jeff. Deny, hide. Deny, hide.

"Hiding the Porsches", just as with everything else you hide & coverup. You scientists cannot fool us by simply parking a beaten up 1992 Nissan in your car park. We sceptics know what's going on here and are watching you. Eventually you'll slip up, and we'll find the Porsche or the Maserati. They have to be out there somewhere......

it's clear that you have nothing useful to contribute to the views of intelligent people

Like I said, bill ...

Meanwhile over on 'going nova' Jo Codling and her mates including Senator Cory Bernardi plus a divorce lawyer from Newcastle, NSW have sent *Presenting a Formal Request to Audit BOM and CSIRO Climate Data and Advice* to the Auditor General of Australia. The document is 64 pages long and their 'evidence' includes the WUWT meme on the placing of urban thermomenters in the US. I guess they'll be citing the actions of the Attorney General of Virginia as a precedent.

I do so hope that they will forever be associated with that action.

I do so hope that there are personal and crippling repercussions to wasting taxpayers money based on nothing more than coming to believe in your own conspiracy hobbies.

The Codling/Bernardi initiative seems to be along the same lines as the similar actions taken in NZ by a bunch of fruitloops who took their meteorology service to court over the weather data.

At moments like these, the Arabian approach appeals: investigate the supposed fraud, and then throw the false-accusers in gaol to serve out the equivalent of a fraud sentence.

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

[Jeremy C](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

This action by Codling, Cox, and Bernardi (shudder) actually represents a good opportunity for some serious debunking of their nonsense at the highest levels of government and of science.

I hope that the Auditor General takes the submission seriously, and presents a detailed and comprehensive rebuff - and a very public one. It would be good to see two conspicuous denialist nonsense-spreaders and a denialist politician dressed down in front of the whole country.

I wonder if the Auditor General would take other ublic submissions in response? I also wonder if he'd be prepared to comment publicly on the mendacious intent of Codling et al, and on the cost to the public purse of having to respond to them and to scrutinise data that was already checked in the relevant professional domains?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

I fell off me chair, reading that, Jeremy C (#72).

I look forward to the challenge, especially with Cory Benardi, a First Class Wit(less) when it comes to climate science generally, as witnessed by his very missives and website material. I won't stoop/slither so low as to link to any of the nonsense/nonscience.

These people soak up valuable oxygen going on about waste of taxpayer dollars, and then they come out with hare-brained ideas like this? I wish I could say what is really on my mind, but the best I can do is say "multiply the above comments by 100", and that starts to get there. Sheesh.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

Unfortunately in the PR war, Mud sticks where there is uncertainty. *If they are being investigated they must have done something wrong*.

Bernardi gets the top Senate ticket status for the Liberals in SA, so the SA Liberal rank and file have (at least for his last election cycle) made untouchable except for a complete collapes bring Liberals vote done to Family First levels.

So Bernardi can take a hit to his cred with little repercussions for him personally, and Nova and Cox and no cred to lose. Hence the mud slinging tactics.

The most promising avenue is if the Liberal insiders see repercussions that lead them to put Bernardi lower on the Senate ticket.

>*At moments like these, the Arabian approach appeals: investigate the supposed fraud, and then throw the false-accusers in gaol to serve out the equivalent of a fraud sentence.*

;)

Following on from Codling's ambit claim to the Auditor-General, [Anthony Watts on peer-review](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/climate-audit-requested-of-the-au…):

REPLY: Oh please, peer reviewed publications are not the pinnacle of truth. I (or anyone else) could write up a paper that would make it through peer review that could be totally wrong. It has happened lots of times. Peer review isnât auditing, and it often doesnât do much beyond have a conversation about the merits of the paper. Peer review is an unpaid profession. We get what we pay for.

I get so sick of people like you touting peer review as âtruthâ, when that peer review often doesnât even bother with the job of replication. If the peer reviewers of Michael Mannâs paleo-trainwreck had bothered to do replication, climate science wouldnât be so damaged today. In fact I doubt that Climate Audit or WUWT would even exist had such replication been done.

Pull your head out of your butt Mr. Adler, demand replication, demand the numbers add up. Thatâs whatâs going on here. â Anthony

([Archived here](http://backupurl.com/5uokoo)).

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

The more I think about it the more I am considering submitting to McFee myself and recommending that he do the audit...

...sand that he include, in his terms of reference, an audit of the claims, actions and culpabilities of Codling, Marohasy, Stockwell, Bolt, the Australian, and many other purveyors of pseudoscience and libel against professional scientists.

Let's blow the lid on this thing, once and for all.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

The Codling/Bernardi initiative is a win-win for them - expect more whatever happens:

1) A ringing endorsement of the science and its presentation, will be described as a "whitewash"

2) Any little criticism of the CSIRO/BOM will be blown out of all proportion, a la BER.

And, as per jakerman, while it runs a cloud hangs over the defendants who are "under investigation". And, by keeping this Clayton's issue in the news (or at least on the blogs), it spreads doubt.

Win-win-win-win

How about somebody taking the same action against Carter or Plimer for the lies in their books?

Perhaps, and I'm not recommending anything here, BOM and CSIRO ought to say to Benardi et al: sure, and here are the exabytes of raw land/sea/sim data, and here are the petabytes of satellite and aircraft data: KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!

Just thinkin' aloud.

PS: auditors should show their intermediate calculations in the column provided.

PPS: Sheesh!

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

I wonder if Bernardi, Codling et al bothered to read something like [updating australia's high-quality temperature dataset](http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf) or even the BOM web site !

>Monitoring changes in Australiaâs climate requires observational datasets that are not only good quality, but also homogeneous through time.

>A homogeneous climate record is one in which all observed climate variations are due to the behaviour of the atmosphere, not other influences, such as changes in location, exposure of the observation site, instrumentation type or measuring procedure.

>A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.

>The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated. Procedures to identify and adjust for non-climatic changes in historical climate data generally involve a combination of:

>investigating historical information (metadata) about the observation site,
using statistical tests to compare records from nearby locations, and
using comparison data recorded simultaneously at old and new locations, or with old and new instrument types.

> Eventually you'll slip up, and we'll find the Porsche or the Maserati. They have to be out there somewhere......

We're hiding them in the carpark at BP and the Heartland Institute.

They'll NEVER find them there!!!

> I get the feeling you are confused...

Yes bill, you are confused.

About pretty much everything.

> For some reason, I get the feeling you think that "I get up and go to work ever day" means the same thing as "I will get up and go to work every day forever".

You see? Totally confused.

You get up each day because you're trying to get money and using the calamity of being on the street penniless with your family as the doom-driver of your own profit empire.

> Great thing about being clueless, it goes around...

Indeed it does, bill. Indeed it does.

PS if only doommongering gets the moolah, how come the liar lord Mad Monkton got paid $100,000 to appear in the US? He keeps telling everyone things are going to be A-OK? GWPF too has millions coming in from less than 80 people yet continue to state that things are just fine the way they are.

Maybe it's because the real money is in pandering to the wishes of the people. Especially the people with lots of money.

But you're confused and clueless as you yourself are beginning to realise.

> Interesting that rather than wait for my answer, you presume the worst

Isn't that EXACTLY what you're doing? You've not got any information about why grants are given out, haven't even looked yet, yet you presume the worst.

Apparently that's only bad when someone does it to YOU.

Funny that.

> I say that the sun rising is a significant part of our climate

Again, you forget the past because it is inconvenient. THIS:

> My research has shown that the sun rises every day,

is what you said. Nothing about climate there. Just that you KNOW the sun rises each day. Then you project this model of the past and make the prediction that the sun will do so tomorrow too, yet you haven't shown that proof.

Just inference.

> certain things about our climate can be predicted with the same certainty that you can use to predict that the sun will rise again for the next thousand or million years.

Care to elucidate? What things?

Because one thing that is shown to be predicted to continue is the effect CO2 has on the global temperature. For each doubling of CO2, 2-4.5C warming. If the quantum properties of greenhouse gasses no longer hold, if the effects of temperature change from what the paleoclimate evidence has shown us no longer hold, then the Sun's output too will be different and you cannot tell that it will still be there to rise tomorrow.

> I get the feeling that you think you comment was profound or meant to trap me in some way.

Yes, the paranoid always think everything is against them. E.g. all the AGW science is a way to take YOUR money off you and thousands or millions are in on the scam.

@All

We were talking earlier about the 'need' to pepper papers with warm words (calls to the faithful) The UK's 'Spectator' mentions this also today.

[Debunking the Antarctica myths](http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica…)

Quote:

âPapers that come to lukewarm or sceptical conclusions are published, if at all, only after the insertion of catechistic sentences to assert their adherence to orthodoxy. Last year, a paper in Nature Geosciences concluded heretically that `it is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity to carbon dioxideâ (high sensitivity underpins the entire IPCC argument), yet presaged this with the (absurd) remark: `Earth's climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the twenty-first century.â"

Anybody want to suggest that is want happened here.

Sorry, does anybody not want to suggest that is not what happened here!

@Hank

Hide. ;)

...continuing with the thread subject.

Its interesting the claims of the Oz news anti AGW bias around here though a closer look shows something different...

"One would expect that recent headlines of Australian media conglomerate News Limited becoming a carbon zero company would be well received, but on the contrary,..."

http://www.eco-business.com/news/2011/feb/17/black-white-and-green-all-…

Heh,...looking at what Oz news actually does it seems this climate realist me would have a more valid claim of Oz news being in the climate hysteria camp...

.

.

.

.

By Flying Binghi (not verified) on 17 Feb 2011 #permalink

.

Referring back to my post #3 in this thread, i find it interesting that, apart from the link being corrected, nobody has commented on what i found ? Here's post #3 again -

Hmmm, i had a look-see at "their latest effort" and the link provided is actually to "Scientists and commentators make heavy weather of the Queensland cyclone"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/scientists-and-commentator…

Apparently the article is not about the thread subject, though interesting all the same.

Quoting the 'heavy weather' cut and paste article - "...JONES: Can you or other scientists make a link with climate change? Nott: Yes, well, we know that as oceans warm, tropical cyclones will increase in intensity, but we really need to see some years of data and a change in the trend of cyclones before we can actually state that these tropical cyclones are being influenced by humans in that sense..."

A visit to the ABC record of interview and watching the video did not show that wording - http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3129538.htm

...interesting, i could very well have the wrong interview, though a further search didn't show it ???

.

So...., did Oz news fabricate part of the interview or not ??? or have the ABC removed part of the interview, or have i not found the actual interview that Oz news were quoting ???....

.

.

.

By Flying Binghi (not verified) on 17 Feb 2011 #permalink

GSE quote:

it is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide

You think that's news, do you? What an ignoramus.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 Feb 2011 #permalink

Re 85.
I see from the comments on the Nature article, that the merchants of doubt are already in action. I wonder what it will take before they finally say "Ah, yes, maybe you're right...."

Drive-by Binge.

Your modus operandi clearly is to vomit forth some denialist rubbish, and when that is shown to be festering in the sun you simply move on to regurgitate another bolus of nonsense or misrepresentation.

Cease and desist. It is no more pleasant or productive an endeavour than a 17 year old girl binge-drinking on a Saturday night and spewing in the gutter.

And I notice that you have now discovered the power of a full-stop (period) followed by a carriage return. Unfortunately, it helps not a whit with your formatting.

Heaven help us if you discover ascii art...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Feb 2011 #permalink

Binghi, the rubbish sprouted by the NZCSC (New Zealand Climate Science Coalition) about the NZ temperature record has been covered in great depth, though it hasn't slowed down their denial machine one bit.

These guys have demonstrated that:

a) they don't understand why station data from a site which has changed to a higher elevation should be adjusted so that it doesn't show an artificial/false cooling trend.

b) they can't follow clear instructions on how to deal with data

c) they don't know how to take meaningful averages (which is junior high school maths)

They still think the record is fudged to show warming, because that's what they need to believe, even though it gets clearly explained to them over and over. If you have "genuine scepticism" ranging through to "dumb denialism", they are hard up against the stops of "dumb denialism".

> Papers that come to lukewarm or sceptical conclusions are published, if at all, only after the insertion of catechistic sentences to assert their adherence to orthodoxy.

Or, in other words, "if a paper says one tiny little thing that can be twisted to support the denialist stance of The Spectator, then that is the ONLY bit of the report that's true."

This is the same sort of revisionist denialist bullshit that Poptech uses to populate his list of denialist papers.

You can easily point to The Spectator and say that any report of global warming being true has to have some words to support the corporation#s orthodoxy that global warming isn't happening.

Fox have even released a memorandum from their Editor to this effect. The Spectator has just been following corporate propoganda needs.

After all, if companies don't like what your paper says, they'll take away ALL the money you're making.

Plenty of reason to pander.

Its interesting reading about the corrupting of the New Zealand temperature record...

One lying asshole citing another lying asshole. The difference, though, is that Treadgold seeks to influence the ignorant, the stupid, and those whose acceptance of a claim is determined by whether it conforms to their ideology -- people like you, that is -- whereas you're trying to influence us.

.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

via David Gould, #98
"...You are looking at the wrong interview. The one the Australian quoted is from the day before..."

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

.

Whoops, missed it - Thanks for that David.

Having a look-see its interesting to compare the two interviews that had the same interviewer both times -

.

02/02/2011;

"...TONY JONES: Can you or other scientists make a link with climate change? You talk about the warming oceans.

JONATHAN NOTT: Yes, well, we know that as oceans warm, tropical cyclones will increase in intensity, but we really need to see some years of data and a change in the trend of cyclones before we can actually state that these tropical cyclones are being influenced by humans in that sense.

So no one single cyclone or season of cyclones can definitely be pinned down to human causes, however, we just don't know. I mean, this is the type of thing that we expect to see as a result of global warming.

So, if this sort of activity continues on in the years ahead, we probably will be able to say that, but at the present time, we can't be sure..."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3128461.htm

.

03/02/2011;

"...TONY JONES: As we'll see in just a moment, the Government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut is warning that global warming will lead to more severe weather events just like this, so Queenslanders should support action against climate change. Do you agree with him?

JONATHAN NOTT: Yes, absolutely, and we do expect to see more extreme events, particularly in the tropical regions. We're going to see more extreme tropical cyclones, category five cyclones. We're going to see more extreme rainfall events and floods and we could also see more extreme droughts too. So we really do need to take these warnings very, very seriously and absolutely support it.

TONY JONES: Do you think that it is inevitable that we will see more category five cyclones like Yasi and perhaps not be as lucky next time where they land?

JONATHAN NOTT: I do actually, and whether it's due to anthropogenically-induced climate change or not, we know that even by natural cycles we would start to see more of these extreme events coming through.

But as well as that, we do have climate change and that's going to add to the problem, so I don't think there's any doubt that we're going to see more of these type of events..."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3129538.htm

.

Heh, seems to me that Nott is a bit more 'enthusiastic' about the global warming hysteria in the second interview... i wonder what changed...

.

.

.

.

By Flying Binghi (not verified) on 19 Feb 2011 #permalink

@105:

I wonder if anything changed ...

FWIW Dingbat, you're comparing apples with oranges.

Lying dingbat has escaped from his looney bin.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Mar 2011 #permalink

Lying dingbat has escaped from his looney bin.

Well, no.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Mar 2011 #permalink