Graham Lloyd is back with a story headlined “Climate link to Sandy invalid” (Google the title if you want to read it). As we've come to expect from The Australian the headline is contradicted by the story, with both scientists quoted agreeing that sea level rise caused by global warming had worsened the flooding from Sandy. Lloyd writes (all links in quotes added by me):
In a statement on the disaster that hit North America on Monday, the federal government-sponsored Climate Commission said "all the evidence suggests that climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy". …
Professor England said increased humidity, higher sea levels and warmer sea surface temperatures were all contributing to the severity of storms.
All of which is true, so how does Lloyd make a claim that the “Climate Commission has misrepresented data”?
The commission quoted data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that "the temperature of the surface waters from which Sandy drew energy were three to five degrees warmer than average".
However, senior NOAA climate scientist Martin Hoerling said the higher sea-surface temperatures quoted by the Climate Commission were not significant in relation to Sandy.
Dr Hoerling told US public radio in the aftermath of Sandy that ocean temperatures adjacent to the US eastern seaboard had been running several degrees higher than normal.
But he said the unusually warm waters were in areas where the background temperature was relatively cool. "So adding a few degrees Fahrenheit at that cool water temperature doesn't matter too much for the intensity of a hurricane," Dr Hoerling said.
In other words, it does matter, but it it’s not as important as unusually warm tropical water as Matthew England explained to Lloyd:
"So the climate change signal in Sandy is largely due to sea-level rise, the increased humidity in the world's atmosphere, and the tropical ocean temperature anomalies. The temperatures up near New York, while still a factor in the storm, are less of a factor than the above three changes."
Or, as Lloyd spins it, “Professor England conceded the sea-surface temperature highlighted in the Climate Commission document was not significant.” Well, no, that’s not what he “conceded”.
Completely missing from Lloyd's story was this, from the Climate Commission:
Warmer oceans now and into the future are likely to influence the intensity of cyclones. A recent study summarised this as follows:"We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-and magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)".
Warmer temperatures make for stronger surges and hence likely made Sandy worse. Which I guess is why it didn't appear in Lloyd's story. Tamino has more on the study.
Did Lloyd teach Rose or Rose teach Lloyd?
These now pseudo-scientists and others of their ilk, by engaging in public advocacy rather than science, are the real villains by providing the likes of Rose and Lloyd with garbage to feed their ideology, as of course do the wanna-be scientists like Watts and Monckton.
It's beyond me why Lloyd needs to offer his opinion at all. In the space he wastes manufacturing dissent early in the piece,he could give the experts more quote time,explore the event dispassionately and make himself invisible.
But of course he has started with a mission: to charge the Climate Commission with misrepresentation,and if he has to misrepresent to fulfill the mission,so be it. Oddly enough,by the end of the article,the puff has gone from Lloyd's sails and the difference in emphasis is largely reconciled...and the climate link to Sandy is confirmed.
This is great. Half the world beleives that little fairies come out at night and sprinkle carbon dust on thee earth to make it warmer.
Liberals are comical. Man made-up global warming is a scam and everyone involved should be in prison! It is nothing more than a UN welath redistribution/population control pnzi scheme and everyone involved should be severely punished for this satanic inspired crime.
This is why I stopped buying The Australian. If anything, it's got worse - and I didn't think that was possible.
Is this a real story from The Australian?
Oops, of course you have to google it to get behind the paywall - as the saying goes, "to protect the innocent"
Paywall? For those who don't know about Google's cache, I claim 'fair use':
ONCE upon a time when Christendom was at its peak, missionaries would be dispatched to the four corners of the globe in search of converts. They believed their mission would expand the influence of Rome and save heathens from eternal damnation.
It was a compelling message. Convert and enjoy everlasting life in the hereafter. The advantage the missionaries had was that the religion they taught had no hypotheses that could be tested. Death - "the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns" - meant that the afterlife could be neither proved nor disproved. Faith was the only thing needed.
Climate science is a bit like that - push the rewards and the catastrophes far enough into the future, and have faith that the prophecies will come true. However, unlike heaven, which we may reach at any time, climate prophecies need to be distant enough to make them hard to challenge yet sufficiently close to generate urgent action.
Digital Pass $1 for first 28 Days
So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period.
Unfortunately for him, England is still inhabited and his predictions are still remembered. Ehrlich is now a warmist. Like a good stock analyst, when the company doesn't perform as you thought, better to change the recommendation from a sell to a buy, than admit you were wrong.
When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.
The message was stark. If the non-believers didn't convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages?
Because the new arrangements would distort capital allocations, disciples wrote economic texts showing how inefficient, productivity-sapping and costly green industries would actually boost economic activity and employment.
Unfortunately, the cost of saving the planet would fall disproportionately on the poor. This wealth transfer to the rich was unavoidable and, if the poor or the infirm died of cold or heat because they could not afford airconditioning, they would simply be martyrs to the cause. In any case, who could they appeal to? All political parties had signed up to the new religion.
But, self-deluded by the warming period and their confirmatory bias, the priesthood was overtaken by hubris and made increasingly extravagant claims. We were advised that Armageddon was now even closer at hand.
Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible. They could not be silenced.
Of course, the IPCC texts can be interpreted in different ways and sceptics have obviously chosen the wrong interpretation.
When atmospheric temperatures on which we had relied failed to comply with the prophecies, the waverers were instructed to look at ocean temperatures and rising sea levels.
So far, so good. However, the British arm of the climate establishment silently released an encyclical that revealed no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August this year.
This communique was unearthed by the heretic newspaper, the Daily Mail, which pointed out that this period was of about the same duration as when temperatures rose between 1980 to 1996.
Of course, the religious high priests were quick to play down the significance of this pause. Phil Jones of the Climategate denomination claimed it was to be expected and, he insisted, 15 or 16 years is not a significant period.
Yet in 2009 he said that a "no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried". But that was then and this is now and he is not about to lose his religion simply because the evidence doesn't support the text.
And, of course, there are always extenuating circumstances. El Nino and La Nina are there when you need them, to be forgotten when temperatures are warming or remembered if they are cooling. And, we've had a record Arctic melt. But better not mention the storm that NASA concedes broke the ice up and drove it south, or the record Antarctic ice gain.
Rather we must listen to Australia's Climate Change Commission novitiates who, against the evidence, have delivered a parable linking Superstorm Sandy to global warming.
At least the media disciples are keeping the faith by emphasising what supports the gospel and, where possible, omitting that which doesn't. New, corroborative revelations enjoy widespread publicity. If the same findings are later retracted for lack of scientific rigour, they are simply allowed to disappear without comment.
Yet despite all, believers in man-made global warming are declining. It will require an extraordinary crusade presaging even direr climate consequences for defying the warmist faith, before defectors even contemplate rejoining the religion. If that fails it may be time to burn sceptics at the stake. But then that would increase CO2 emissions. A dilemma, to be sure.
Maurice L. Newman is a former chairman of the ABC.
Note the author. This is the guy who until recently ran Australia's public broadcaster.
Something is wrong in the state of Deniermark.
And yes, I'm trying to get the Australian to have a go at Deltoid. It would be the best advertising possible for the abject abhorence of this piece.
Come on Oz, sick us...
Thanks for posting Bernard.
It's astounding that such easily deconstructed drivel is aimed at allegedly educated people, with a straight face.
Maurice Newman was running the ABC when it gave a fair bit of time to various publicly visible denialists, IIRC.
What drivel is that Newman piece. Style suggests that it is the regurgitation of something this narrow crackpot would produce. Who is the zealot here? And yes she is know to have contributed to Mail opinion pieces. Birds of a feather.
I recently complained to the Australian Press Council about an execrable piece in The Australian by James Dellingpole. I'm awaiting the final adjudication shortly, but can say that the Press Council took the complaint seriously. I don't want to be seen as a serial litigant, so perhaps someone else could lodge a complaint about the Newman piece. There are lots of factual misrepresentations to base such as complaint upon.
Perhaps The Australian needs to go to fact-checking school along with Alan Jones ...
I have a proposal for "The Negotiator". Every day any place in the world breaks its all time maximum temperature record, you give me $x. Every day any place in the world breaks its all time minimum temperature record, I give you $x. We keep going until someone gives in. Care to negotiate a value for x?
I have a proposal for Alan. Every time a left winger makes 1 dollar off of this global warming scheme Alan pays me 5 dollars. i should be a trillionaire by tommorrow.
Alan is comical. Should I telling him the earth has natural climate cycles and that hot and cold comes and goes or should I let him figure it out on his own. I bet he is canadian and doesn't know about such things as knowledge.
If X marks the spot where man made-up climate change UN meddlers and schemers kiss my hairy Anglo Saxon butt, then YES.
Oh, sod off, you nutter! People like you are too dense to waste time with.
I bet he is canadian and doesn’t know about such things as knowledge.
Illiterate xenophobic unworldy redneck drivel. If you're not a Poe and are more than 11 years old your education - assuming you had one - was wasted. Go away.
Ah, another person who wants to bet on the existence of climate change!
OK, hairy-arsed racist, why don't you wager on actual climate... I have a bet that one of your denialist brethren was too chicken-shit to accept, just as all of the resident trolls here have always been, so I will invite you to step to the plate.
Failing that, how about you pay the charity of my choice one dollar for every million dollars the fossil fuel industry makes by delaying action on climate change?
Ok, I will wager you on climate change you stupid pagan earth worshipper.
I wager you $100 trillion that climate change does exist, except most people just call it Seasons and fail to make such a big fuss over it.
What is fossil fuels? Don;t you mean earth fuels? Oil is naturally made within the earth. Fossils are dead animals that got buried alove during the global flood of Noah's day.
Delaying action on climate change eh? Ok you win. I will call Exxon Mobil in the morning and demand that they change the weather for next week. Looks like I win. Now, you pay the charity of my choice. Go ahead and pay Ken Ham $25 million to build the ark.
Fossil that fuel!
Bill, how am I racist. Canadians are white people. I am white people. How am I racist? Canadians are stupid though. Then again, that's what socialism does, it decreases the demand to think for oneself and over time the brain become null and void and the person then becomes a drone of the government doing the will of the government force, the dark side of it anyway.
I had an education, but I chose not to believe in evolution or your fraud man made-up climate change. Oh, I read the textbooks and did the homework and answered the test question right. Doesn't mean I actually believed any of it. I just did ti becuase it was a requirement to graduate. They could make me take the courses, but they couldn't force me to actually believe it. It was all I could do to stay in the classroom with those bearded professor clowns. There was a time or two i almost laughed out loud, but held it in due to fear of punishment . You know left wing professors punish students who do not follow their line of thinking. That's ok, seeing themselves in the mirror is revenge enough for me.
Which blog has the best Poe, this Negotiator person does not even come close to Eric Worrall at Watchingthedeniers
Did I say 'racist'? I said xenophobe; look it up, or ask an edumacated person from outside the trailer park to explain it for you.
Bernard said 'racist', revealing the depths of his heathen, left-wing, post-colonial, science-worshipping, good-ole-boy-oppressing, hair-shirted, hand-wringing, bleeding-heart depravity. Don't challenge him on it, he'll only punish you further.
(And I bet you 'am white people', Mr. Poe ;-) )
Canadians are only Australians who say 'aboot' (as in 'it's aboot half-past four') anyway...
The Negotiator sounds a lot like Insufficient Combatant who frequents Coby Beck's blog these days.
I wager you $100 trillion that climate change does exist...
I'm going with John's and Bill's assessment that the negator is a poe.
It's such a shame... I really want a genuine rusted-on denier to have sufficient courage in their claims that they're willing to put their money where their mouth is.
It seems that deep down in that part of their minds where they hide the fact that they like to see helpless animals bleed, they all know something about the Arctic sea ice that they're not publicly letting on to their Denialati compadres.
It's the science that dare not speak its name...
"*Canadians are white people. I am white people"*
This illiterately written statement alone should prove once and for all that 'The Negotiator' is a complete idiot... not worth the time of day.
Trust me your Poe is second rate
Eric is a recognised world famous idiot
even randi org blog agrees
[ Global Warming Discussion - - JREF Forum
Check out Eric Worrall at watchingthedeniers. for the real business. If it's a Poe it deserves an award. we no longer get that quality of denial here
Could your Poe even come close to eric
WUWT quasi 60 year cycle
Eric ” that it recommends this possibility be considered in any projection of future SLR”
Eric, even if proven it means nothing more than it should be taken into consideration when doing studies of SLR acceleration
” the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level”
you are not even close
"Every time a left winger makes 1 dollar off of this global warming scheme Alan pays me 5 dollars."
OK, and if the fossil fuel industry makes 1 dollar off fossil fuel purchase scheme, you pay Allan 5 dollars.
Otherwise it isn't a bet, it's just you begging for another government handout, just like your buddies in the fossil fuel and nuclear industry do.
'The Negotiator' are you also 'Oil Is Mastery' or just another of his abiotic oil believing fellow twerps. The incorrect use of caps in that latter title suggests a close affinity, and beyond.
And FWIW I don't think that you are a Poe - not sophisticated enough.
OK Negotiator, so you do accept that the world is warming, correct? You just attribute it to forces other than human activity? So then you agree that the people claiming there has been no warming over the last 16 years are wrong?
See, one of the telltale signs of a crank is the adoption of multiple contradictory positions at once, and an unwillingness to criticize their political allies who hold different views. You can't believe both that the earth is warming due to natural causes AND that the earth isn't warming at all. So which is it?
Hoerling has spotted a market opening.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
OK Negotiator, so you do accept that the world is warming, correct?”
Only in the summertime!
You just attribute it to forces other than human activity? So then you agree that the people claiming there has been no warming over the last 16 years are wrong?
I contribute it to natural earth cycles which God created and i still in control of. There may be warming for the last 16 years. Glaciers have melted. That’s fine. No argument there. It is merely a natural eath cycles. Eventually it will get cold again and new glaciers will emerge. What is the big deal?
Someone or something diluted my last post. I have no friends in the nuclear field. And, since fossil fuels do not exist and oil is abiotic I have no friends in a non existant “fossil fuel” industry either.
Looks like the Negotiator just got negotiated. Who is this person? There used to be a certain troll who haunted Orac's blog by the name of "medicien man" who might just be the culprit. Hmmm .... I wonder. The similarities are there.
Narad you may be correct in your assessment. Ths is the same one who used to call me a fluoride overdosed canadian. He is still calling people stupid canadians. I bet it is the same stupid troll. If you remember correctly he and Chris had arguments and his same old line about chris not having any chromosmes would come up.
No, you cannot tell them apart, they are all insane.
this was a reply to my letter that went into a few regional papers last month,
In the Southern Free Times, 25th Oct, one writer belittles the climate change skeptics. So much for freedom of speech, but it reflects the mentality of pseudo scientists who refuse to accept contrary evidence that would jeopardize their jobs. For example they refused to allow the scientist Lord Moncton to speak in Australia. Thousands of scientists have contrary views, so why are they not heard, in the interest of fairness?
There is a climate change policy by those in power who want to change our lives to further enslave us. Christ will change us for the better if we let Him. When we allow Him to change us spiritually there will be no need for fascism.
There is a change coming. Nature is in convulsion as men disobey God’s Holy Law. The change will come when Our Savior returns and every knee will bow in submission. While some will welcome Christ, others will be silenced. Where will you be? We have a little time to change our attitude.
Scientist cannot define, or love, and they try to define truth as they see it. God gives us all time accept truth. But when time ends each person’s destiny is sealed, God shows His love to us by allowing us time to come to knowledge of His truth.
Wouldn't it be, like, really cool if the drubbing of the Repugs yesterday and the recent Damascene conversions of Bloomberg and Christie resulted in the drying up of financing for these Jesus for Ignorance lunatic outreach programs as witnessed in this thread?
Ignorance has never been and can never, ever be a strength, so whyever did international right wing strategy ever try to make it so?
"whyever did international right wing strategy ever try to make it so?"
Because they're dumb enough to vote against their own best interest as long as you say a few key pavlovian words.
Godless atheists taking over the world.
My God - the idiot is for real? Gobsmacking! How can a central nervous system cope with the overwhelming weight of Stupid?
How can a central nervous system cope with the overwhelming weight of Stupid?
It's self-sustaining provided Teh Stupid is constantly repeated and advocated to others. At some subconscious level this is known, hence the strong internal motivation to keep posting it all over the place.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Winston Churchill
Reality, has a liberal bias.
"The Negotiator" Is that before or after you've taken your Viagra?
John Byatt, that's hilarious. I don't think he even realized the cognitive dissonance in berating scientists at the end of the letter, while complaining the "scientist" Monckton was not allowed to speak and the reference to thousands of other "scientists" who hold contrary views.
Turns out Graham Lloyd is a joke, a poor journalist, and an unreliable secondary source.
History will record these facts, and his offspring will undoubtedly be incredibly proud.