Search Results for: hoegh-guldberg

Geologist: Plimer a "cherry-picking contrarian"

No agenda?

UPDATE: View the letters in response to Sandiford’s article here (thanks to reader Bruce in the comments).

Writing in The Australian Mike Sandiford takes a pop at Ian Plimer. Just by way of background, Sandiford:

  • approvingly quotes Naomi Oreskes, whose book, Merchants of Doubt, lumps in climate sceptics with those who deny the link between smoking and cancer
  • claims last year was the hottest “on record” (don’t forget, he’s a geologist)
  • writes for “The Conversation” (link) alongside such infamous names as David Karoly, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Enting, Ross Garnaut and  Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  • is a signatory to an open letter from Australian warmists: “Climate change is real” (link)
  • writes alarmist articles for the Silly Moaning Herald (link)

so I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. Looks like Sandiford has had a problem with Ian Plimer for a while – another article in The Aus covering similar ground is here.

GINA Rinehart notoriously claims she has never met a geologist who believes “adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate”.

To listen to prominent “contrarian” geologists such as Ian Plimer, you might imagine she never could.

But, despite the bluster, our contrarian geologists are out of kilter with their own community and seem deeply confused about the way the greenhouse effect – by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example – has shaped both the past and the present.

All geology students learn of the importance of the greenhouse effect. It’s simply impossible to understand the geological record without it. [Read more…]

Open letter from Australian warmists

It's a bit one-sided (as always)

The Conversation publishes an open letter from a collection of Australian warmist academics, which repeats the usual IPCC line and adds little to the debate, except by smearing sceptics (again). I thought for a bit of fun we could examine in detail what the letter says. Before we do, however, let’s have a look at just a few of the signatories:

  • Andrew Glikson
  • David Karoly
  • Matthew England
  • Ian Enting
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  • Andy Pitman
  • Barry Brook
  • Neville Nicholls

A veritable gallery of Australian alarmists, well documented here on ACM (just search any of those names). So already we know what the letter will say. It is oddly titled “Climate change is real” by which I think they mean “man-made climate change is real”, so even before we’ve got past the title, there is an intentionally confusing ambiguity. Not a promising start.

Anyway, here we go – I warn you in advance, it’s not pretty:

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

That’s because we daren’t look too closely at natural causes in case we find out that CO2 isn’t as much to blame as our models say. Solar? Schmolar.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Scary tag line? Check.

Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”

Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.

As we all know, the entire climate system is just one big knob with CO2 scrawled on it. Cripple the world’s economies, and problem solved. The fact that temperatures went up and down by greater amounts than the present warming before any industrialisation is just a tiresome distraction. The models are programmed to result in a climate sensitive to changes in CO2 but not to natural forces, with significant but unverified positive feedbacks, which are little more than guesswork, just to make sure.

Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.

Translation: “best” being the climate warriors on our side, and “worst” being the filthy sceptics.

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

Usefully confusing “fossil-fuel pollution” with harmless CO2 in order to muddy the waters. Of course there are health benefits to reducing proper pollution, such as toxins and particulates, but if that were the aim, we wouldn’t be planning on taxing our economy out of existence. Reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on health whatsoever. Even these scientists refuse to be intellectually rigorous and unambiguously distinguish between harmless CO2 and “pollution”.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Yawn, yawn, ad hom, yawn… How about responding to their concerns? Breach of pre-election promise by the Prime Minister? The fact that nothing Australia does will make any difference to the climate? Or are they just too hard?

Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.

Laughs out loud. Sorry. Have these people actually seen the ABC or Fairfax? Read Unleashed on the ABC web site recently? Rarely is a critical word published in these two major news organisations (not to mention most of the international news agencies), but still they complain of media bias. Lamentable.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

And I bet they won’t invite a single one to take part. It will be a closed shop of warmists, all stewing in their own juices, like the Climate Commission. On the one hand they want to exclude sceptics from the process, and on the other, they then complain sceptics are resorting to other methods to get their views across. You can’t have it both ways.

For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.

My aching sides. Alarmists talking about subverting peer review? Climategate, anyone? When there is a cosy little coterie of warmists who all review each others papers, and make sure any that challenge the consensus are rejected? Please.

We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.

There will then follow the inevitable smearing of anyone who dares question the whole alarmist package put forward by the IPCC (and the signatories to this letter).

The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.

Do you know what would be really refreshing? If some of the signatories actually took the time to invite a respected “sceptic” like Bob Carter or Richard Lindzen to discuss his concerns about the IPCC position. But they won’t because they are afraid of what they might hear. Much easier to ignore the real issues and carry on smearing sceptics than to actually engage in proper scientific debate.

Read it here.

Latest climate scare: whales

Yet another scare

Add them to the list… hang on, they’re there already. The Sydney Moonbat Herald is recycling climate scares now:

A record number of whales is expected to be spotted passing Sydney this winter, but scientists warn that global warming could put their future at risk.

The first big-picture review of the world’s oceans shows human activity is driving changes at a rate not seen for millions of years. Many species are threatened and increases in disease are predicted.

This could have dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people, a series of scientific reports concludes. Oscar Schofield, of Rutgers University in the US, said environmental change had been profound in the West Antarctic Peninsula and was altering the food chain on which whales in that region depended.

We can rely on our old friend Ove Hoegh-Guldberg to come up with an idiotic quote to get some column-inches (and more funding):

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland, the co-author of another review, said the world’s oceans were the heart and lungs of the planet, but they were showing signs of ill health due to greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s as if the Earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day,” he said. “We are entering a period in which the very ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and, in some cases, beginning to fail.”

Yawn. Next.

Read it here (if you really must).

Alarmists should learn some common courtesy…

"Manners maketh man"

Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? fame is currently in Australia on a speaking tour. I had the pleasure of meeting Anthony at the talk in Rockdale, Sydney on Sunday. Now it appears that Anthony has been given a rough time by our old “friend” Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (see here), who demonstrates that he has fewer manners than you’d expect to find in a kindergarten playground:

The Tuesday night meeting in Brisbane on the WUWT Australian tour had a bit of unexpected fireworks courtesy of Aussie reef scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. The meeting started off with some protestors outside holding placards with the tired old messages claiming “funding by big oil”…etc. Ove actually incited this on his blog, saying that “The Climate Shifts crew and other scientists will be there en masse to record and debunk the lies that will be told.”

The “en masse” was about 5, maybe 6 people by my count.

I’ve never met Ove, never corresponded with him, and after watching his behavior firsthand, I’m not sure I would have wanted to. His behavior left me with the impression that he was the antithesis of a professional person. At least the lady from Oxfam and the fellow in the green shirt who came up to me afterwards had manners, even though they disagreed with me, and I thank them for that. Ove never made the effort to say hello.

I think that tells us all we need to know about Ove.

Read it here.

UN to investigate ClimateGate

Hardly impartial…

Hardly impartial…

Amazingly, the ABC did report this one! Don’t hold your breath, it will be the IPCC effectively investigating itself, so we can be pretty sure it will be a whitewash.

A top UN panel is to probe claims that British scientists sought to suppress data backing climate change sceptics’ views, its head said ahead of the the landmark Copenhagen summit.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the claims – which led a top expert to leave his post temporarily this week – were serious and needed to be investigated.

Professor Phil Jones has stood aside as head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, after emails allegedly calling into question the scientific basis for climate change fears were leaked onto the internet.

Hackers [It ain’t no hacker. This was an inside job – Ed] penetrated the centre’s network and posted online thousands of emails from researchers, including Professor Jones, ahead of the Copenhagen summit which starts Monday.

The CRU at the university in Norwich, eastern England, is a world-leader in the field. [Maybe that should be “was” – Ed]

Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations panel since 2002, told BBC radio: “We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it.

“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.” (source)

I won’t hold my breath. And at the same time, Australian scientists are doing just that: brushing it all under the carpet and hoping it will go away – all lovingly reported by the Sydney Morning Herald:

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor of marine science at the University of Queensland, said a few out-of-context quotes gained by illegally trawling through ”electronic garbage” did not undermine the huge amount of peer-reviewed scientific data on climate change.

”I think the denialist movement is so desperate, given the overwhelming conclusions of the science, that they’ll do anything,” he said. (source)

I think we all know who’s in denial now, Ove.

Climate alarmists' desperate misrepresentations

Are we all ready for our morning dose of Fairfax alarmism? The warm-mongers are getting desperate. The planet continues to ignore the predictions of flaky climate models, and has cooled since 2001, and the warmenistas are starting to worry that they’ll be out of a job if this whole “global warming” scam [surely “climate change” scam – Ed] is revealed to be nothing more than natural climate variations which humanity can do nothing about except adapt.

So what do they do? Resort to even more desperate misrepresentations, which, let’s face it, are bordering on outright lies. Let’s pick them apart.

  • The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950. The warming varies among decades because of natural fluctuations but the overall trend has been inexorably upward.

Yes, the trend has been “inexorably upward” because the climate is recovering from the Little Ice Age, which most alarmists try very hard to ignore. It’s like saying the temperature trend from winter to spring is “inexorably upward” which would surprise nobody. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1950, when carbon emissions were negligible, and they conveniently forget to mention the whole “new Ice Age” scare in the 1970s, when emissions were rising faster than ever.

  • Warming is evident in other indicators, such as rising sea levels and reduced sea-ice and snow cover.

Again, sea levels have been rising at an almost constant rate for several thousand years, and there has been no discernible change in that rate of increase, except, if anything, a possible slowing down in the last few years. Arctic sea ice may have reduced recently, but Antarctic sea ice has increased hugely and is at the same levels as thirty years ago – why did they forget to mention that?

  • Of these, the most important measure is the extra heat in the oceans, which is steadily rising.

There has been no increase in ocean heat since 2003 (see here).

The article then moves on to other “conclusions”:

The second conclusion is that the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important.

This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely [yeah, right – Ed] – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.

No explanations why they conclude this, you will note. Just accept what we say, peasants, and don’t ask difficult questions. They also avoid the tricky subject of why the planet has cooled since 2001 with ever increasing CO2 emissions.

The third conclusion is that warming will increase in future, if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases maintain their present paths. “Business as usual” scenarios for future emissions lead to likely global temperature increases of up to six degrees above present temperatures by 2100.

Where do they get this figure from? The same flaky models, despite them being only used as an afterthought, apparently. And then, just to ram home their desperation further, the usual “it’s all happening faster than we thought”:

New findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago.

The heightened concern among climate scientists arises from a growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing “climate feedbacks”, which contribute to climate change and are accelerated as it occurs, thus causing climate change to feed on itself. When these feedbacks are sufficiently strong they become “climate tipping points” which can flip the climate into a new state with essentially no way to recover.

And this is the trump card the alarmists love to play – the “tipping point”. The planet has been warmer in the past, and, strangely, there were no climate tipping points then. But the whole idea of a “point of no return” is such a useful tactic for the alarmists to scare the unwitting public that they aren’t going to drop it in a hurry. In their view, the climate is balanced precariously on a knife edge, and the slightest prod, whether from man or natural causes, will send it spiralling into oblivion. This is despite no evidence of this ever happening in the past (and please don’t quote the planet Venus at me, there are so many differences that it isn’t the slightest bit analogous to Earth).

And no mention, you will notice, of the possibility of any negative feedbacks, such as increased cloud cover or precipitation, which may transport energy away from the planet or reduce incoming solar radiation, to push the climate towards its original starting point. Feedbacks, in the alarmists’ minds, are always positive.

That’s enough. I can’t stand any more. Here’s the last paragraph, the usual call to immediate action, no matter what the cost:

All of these concerns are firmly grounded in science. They have led the great majority of climate scientists to conclude (paraphrasing the summary of the Copenhagen conference) that rapid, sustained and effective emissions reductions are required to avoid ‘‘dangerous climate change’’, regardless of how it is defined.

Here’s the rogues’ gallery of authors, so you can keep an eye out for them in future:

  • Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO
  • David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University
  • Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre
  • Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW
  • Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland
  • Roger Jones, Victoria University
  • David Karoly, University of Melbourne [über-alarmist extraordinaire]
  • Tony McMichael and Will Steffen [Penny Wong’s climate advisor], Australian National University.

Read it here, but you have been warned.

Reports of Barrier Reef's death exaggerated

Hot on the heels of the “frogs not being killed off by climate change” debacle (see here), The Australian reports that the barrier reef has the ability to adapt to changes in climate. Why this comes as a shock to anyone is beyond me, given that parts of the reef are millions of years old and would have gone through multiple ice ages, multiple interglacials, multiple climate optima and goodness knows what else, yet it’s still there.

University of Queensland marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said yesterday that sea temperatures were likely to rise 2C over the next three decades, which would undoubtedly kill the reef.

But several of Professor Hoegh-Guldberg’s colleagues have taken issue with his prognosis.

Andrew Baird, principal research fellow at the Australian Research Council’s Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said there were “serious knowledge gaps” about the impact rising sea temperatures would have on coral.

“Ove is very dismissive of coral’s ability to adapt, to respond in an evolutionary manner to climate change,” Dr Baird said.

“I believe coral has an underappreciated capacity to evolve. It’s one of the biological laws that, wherever you look, organisms have adapted to radical changes.”

How many other scare stories about the ecology and environment of the planet being damaged “by climate change” are equally misguided? There are two points here:

  • climate change happens, and has been happening since the dawn of time without any help from humans – get used to it;
  • adaptation, not pointless “carbon reduction schemes”, is the key – if coral can do it, so can we.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: