Quote of the Day: 'Gergis has lost all critical distance from her research'

11 June, 2012 by

I like to think that ACM played a small part in this story, as commentators are beginning to look closely at Joelle Gergis’ climate activism and how it invariably taints her research.

Commenter Baldrick first located Gergis’ blog here, which revealed her past climate activism, and we preserved it here and here on Webcitation so that if it ever got posted down the memory hole, it would still be available.

Guess what? That’s exactly what happened, and Gergis’ blog was “disappeared“…

Recall that Gergis, on her blog, wrote:

As a climate scientist, I am hopeful that we will finally see real action on climate change. According to COSMOS, [former Australian PM Kevin] Rudd is expected to receive a “rock star’s welcome” to the world stage at crucial U.N. climate change talks in Bali next month. He will be hailed for agreeing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement aimed at curbing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Up to 140 world environment ministers will attend the conference. It is hoped the meeting will bring vital breakthroughs in the effort to achieve a new climate agreement. It is expected to deliver a road map to show how to keep the planet’s temperature from rising more than two degrees. 

And now, Fritz Varenholt, author of The Cold Sun spells out the obvious conflict:

By mixing activism and science, Joelle Gergis has apparently lost all critical distance [from her] research results, which invariably leads to such errors. A science open to results is impossible with that attitude. This is not only true for Gergis. Inconvenient results are suppressed, interpretations constantly distorted in one direction, and alternatives are ignored or swept aside. Gergis’s refusal to admit to errors and to have a fruitful dialogue with opposing views can only be explained by her ideological fixation. (source)

Well said indeed. Read my post Are climate scientists a self-selecting set of climate activists? here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Sunday Silliness: 'Euthanise your old pet' to save the planet

10 June, 2012 by

Ms Tremayne

People send me links to stuff. This one came in a few days ago, and with it came a message to STOP HAVING BABIES (in capitals). The link points to a highly credible-looking site purportedly selling carbon credits, but it’s clearly an elaborate hoax as the carbon credits are apparently on “backorder” – LOL!

The purpose of the site, I eventually established, is to advertise a (genuine) book, “Biodiesel – A Novel”, which is available on Amazon, and judging by the comments may actually be a good read. An extract is available here.

The worrying thing about this whole yarn was the length of time it took me to work out it was a hoax. We have read stuff like this from genuine extreme-green advocates, so I wasn’t entirely sure whether it was genuine or not.

Here are a few extracts from an article by “Daphne Tremayne” entitled The little things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint (and think to yourselves how many times you may have read similar exhortations from the environmental headbangers):

Like me, you’ve probably realized that everyday living is a catastrophe for the environment!  In many ways, our modern lifestyle has done so much to contribute to ecological degradation and Global Warming.  But have you ever really considered what you can do to change things?  Here are just a few little things you can do to reduce your Carbon Footprint!

  • Stop Having Children

      I know!  I know!  Children are as cute as all get-out, but have you ever really considered how much carbon one child puts into the atmosphere?  Over a single lifetime, the amount is practically immeasurable.  One of the best all-around things for the environment would be fewer people in the world…

  • If You Must Have Children, Buy Baby Credits

     Baby Credits are similar to regular Carbon Credits, however, instead of being backed by non-productive parcels of land, Baby Credits are backed by non-productive women of child-bearing age…

  • Slow Down Your Breathing

      It sounds silly, but breathing is actually a major source of atmospheric carbon.  One of the ways you can reduce your Carbon Footprint is to breathe less.  That’s right, breathe less!  You’re probably asking yourself how that’s possible, but believe it or not, yoga is a great way to slow down the metabolism and reduce the need for excessive breathing.  If you’re not already into yoga, consider taking classes at your local studio.  Soon, you’ll be breathing less, and as an added bonus, feel much less stressed out!

  • Reduce Your Use of Paper Products

     Consider switching to a reusable toilet sponge.  Store your toilet sponge in a mild vinegar and water solution in a receptacle next to the commode and use it the same way you would toilet paper.   Instead of discarding your sponge, rinse it after each use before placing it back in the vinegar and water solution…

  • Euthanize Your Old Pet

     Pets have become a common feature in most homes and are an attribute of the modern, Western lifestyle.  We all love our dogs and cats, but really, when you think about it, pets are a major producer of excess carbon.  One of the best ways to reasonably enjoy your pet and reduce your overall Carbon Footprint is to determine in advance how long your pet should live.  As a family, set a date when your pet will be euthanized.  One great way to teach children the value of pet euthanasia is to turn the occasion into a family celebration.  Let’s say you’ve set March 10, five years from now, as your pet’s euthanasia date.   For the next five years, celebrate March 10 as your pet’s special day, with a family party and perhaps a visit to your pet’s future burial spot.  Teach your children to think of the occasion as a birthday in reverse.  A predetermined euthanasia date will encourage your family to love and care for your furry friend while it’s still young and playful.  What’s more, pre-planing for pet termination not only works towards reducing your family’s Carbon Footprint, but guarantees long term reduction in veterinary expenses. 

There’s plenty more at the link.

 

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Aussie Hockey Stick paper 'put on hold'

9 June, 2012 by

UPDATE: Leigh Dayton, “science” writer for The Australian responds to an email relating to this issue from one of my readers thus:

“I deal only with peer-reviewed science, not cherry-picked “evidence” from people not engaged in research.”

Only thing I can say is: wow. Yet another self-selected environmental activist, alas. Check out this article if you are in any doubt about her blinkered approach to climate. It even uses the “D” word.

Again, thanks to the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre, truly a hero of the realist cause, the paper by Joelle Gergis (climate activist), which claimed a Hockey Stick in Australia (and who then refused to release the data), has been put on hold.

David Karoly writes to McIntyre:

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Note that Karoly says McIntyre’s scrutiny “also” identified the issue, hinting that they had found it themselves independently. How likely is that? Where were all the peer reviewers? Missing in action? Blinded by their own ideology? Just a coincidence that McIntyre blows holes in it and suddenly they find a problem? D’ya think they’d have bothered if McIntyre hadn’t exposed the paper as being potentially flawed? I very much doubt it – it would have just added to the “consensus”.

McIntyre however cautions:

I urge readers not to get too wound up about this, as there are a couple of potential fallback positions. They might still claim to “get” a Stick using the reduced population of proxies that pass their professed test. Alternatively, they might now say that the “right” way of screening is to do so without detrending and “get” a Stick that way.

Why are they trying to “get” a stick? Is that science, or activism?

Read Steve’s post here.

(h/t Paul M – thanks)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Climate sense in Victoria: climate-driven planning laws relaxed

6 June, 2012 by

What the alarmists think will happen…

More climate sense, this time from Victoria, where draconian planning restrictions based on fanciful sea level rise predictions have been “watered down” (ho, ho):

The State Government will relax planning rules designed to address the impact of climate change in town’s along Victoria’s coastline.

The previous Labor government blocked construction in areas that would be affected by a predicted 80 centimetre sea level rise.

A report by the Coastal and Climate Change Advisory Committee recommended reducing those restrictions to a predicted 20 centimetre sea level rise by 2040 for existing towns. (source)

It’s a small step, but at least it’s in the right direction.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Queensland environment minister questions scale of human climate impact

5 June, 2012 by

Climate sense

A glimmer of climate sense from the new Queensland environment minister, who states the realist position that yes, humans affect the climate, but how much we can’t be sure. He should have gone on to say that the remedies proposed are eye-wateringly expensive, will cripple our economy and will do nothing for the climate – maybe he will next time.

The ABC reports this as heresy, of course, and wheels in a “conservationist” to put the ABC’s view, er, I mean the opposing view:

Queensland’s new Environment Minister is the latest politician to voice scepticism about man-made climate change.

Andrew Powell says he is yet to be convinced of the degree to which humans are responsible, but he does support efforts to reduce carbon pollution.

“I believe the climate is changing, I am still to be convinced of the degree to which we are influencing that,” Mr Powell said.

“But having said that, are we polluting the environment? Certainly. Are we using a non-renewable source of energy? Certainly. Do we need to address both of those factors? Most definitely.”

But his comments have alarmed conservation groups.

Toby Hutcheon, from the Queensland Conservation Council, says his comments are inconsistent with the State Government’s official position.

“I hope that Andrew is simply talking as an individual, and not as the responsible minister for Queensland,” Mr Hutcheon said.

“Because that would certainly suggest a change of position by the Government that has long held the view that climate change is a serious threat to Queensland and is being caused predominantly by human activity.” (source)

But there’s more good news as pointless environmental gestures are being wound back, allegedly because the carbon tax will make them redundant. That’s not the correct reason – they are redundant anyway and should be abandoned even without the carbon tax. None of them will do anything for the climate, after all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

ABC finally corrects 2011 ANU death threat story

5 June, 2012 by

FOI request

UPDATE: Marc has written to the ABC requesting they amend the sloppy and partisan wording of this update. We’ll see how far he gets…

Thanks to Marc Hendrickx for this update, which now appears on the original 4 June 2011 story. It still however refers to “climate sceptics” as if the only reason they were forced to issue the correction was because of evil deniers, rather than the fact that the story was incorrect:

UPDATE (June 4 2012):  Following  the release  of specific emails under Freedom of Information request, climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat. The specific emails released under FOI were found by the Privacy Commissioner to contain abuse, but not overt threats.

Note the ANU still claims “death threats” were received – I’m still waiting for the ANU to provide them.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Gillard facing 'carbon tax revolt'

3 June, 2012 by

Stop burning that money! It's bad for the climate!

By the law of averages, there had to be a few MPs in the Labor party who were smart enough to question the nonsensical reasoning behind the carbon tax (and possibly the futility of any kind of unilateral climate action).

The Sunday Telegraph reports that there may be rumblings on the back benches:

JULIA Gillard faces growing backbench unrest over the carbon tax with sceptics quietly planning to push for changes to the incoming tax – or the leadership.

Labor MPs have voiced concerns about the level of the July 1 fixed carbon price – $23 a tonne – and the timetable to transition to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.

A new caucus sub-committee, created to cool MPs’ anger over the government’s foreign-worker deal with mining magnate Gina Rinehart, is set to be a forum for sceptics to push for change, several Labor MPs suggested.

“I just hate the carbon tax. Never wanted it,” one Labor MP told The Sunday Telegraph.

‘We might have a few like-minded sceptics coming out. If I had my way we wouldn’t be having a carbon tax but that’s not possible.” (source)

Now this would be a fight I want ringside seats and a ton of popcorn for.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Australian 'scientists' refuse access to data

2 June, 2012 by

UPDATE: The quote marks around “scientists” in the title have been added because, as a commenter pointed out, real scientists wouldn’t refuse access to data.

A short time ago, ACM wrote of the recent paper by climate activist, sorry, scientist, Joelle Gergis (see here: Hockey Stick lives! In Australia, apparently…) which allegedly showed the last 50 years in Australia were hotter than any other period in the past 1000 years, just like Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

Gergis used to have a WordPress blog which revealed her true activist side, but guess what? It’s been deleted! Image at end of post. Unfortunately, some really annoying blogger at ACM decided to preserve it in Webcite, so you can see it here, and her bio here.

Bishop Hill reports that Steve McIntyre’s requests for data have been met with snotty and offhand refusals:

Steve McIntyre’s latest post seems to me to be of huge importance. The refusal by Joelle Gergis and colleagues to release data behind their paper follows on behind similar refusals from authors in the same clique – principally Raphael Neukom. This stonewalling of reasonable requests represents yet another blow at the credibility of paleoclimate. To make things worse, the credibility of the Gergis paper is shattered by the revelation that it is based on circular reasoning – a fallacy that has been repeatedly noted in paleoclimate papers, yet one which is constantly given the seal of approval by peer reviewers in the field.

Despite the refusal of authors in the Gergis-Neukom clique to release data, as thing stand the IPCC will allow their work to be cited in the Fifth Assessment Report. This seems to me to be a ringing endorsement of pseudoscience. (source)

Gergis’ charming final words to McIntyre:

We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.

That’s the spirit. Trust us, we’re scientists. If you want the data, it’s available somewhere else – maybe.

You can never delete anything from the Interwebs, Joelle.

Filed Under: Climate

Media's double standards on threats

2 June, 2012 by

Chris Merritt writes about the threats endured by those on the other side of the climate debate and politics in general, which, naturally, are rarely reported or mentioned by our PC media, whose self-appointed job is to defend the climate consensus:

At the moment, climate change is one of the “hot button” issues that brings out the crazies. But it’s not just climate change.

Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt has also had threats of physical violence for criticising Islamism and Anita Heiss’s book Am I Black Enough for You?.

He has even been threatened for opposing a national day of mourning for the Black Saturday bushfires.

Bolt puts it down to the morally superior manner of those who play a leading role in setting the tone of public policy debate.

The most startling incident occurred a decade ago when an activist organisation published his home address on its website “along with an exhortation to burn the house down”.

Two weeks ago a filmmaker, whom he named, used Twitter to urge his followers: “Let’s assassinate Andrew Bolt.” It was later removed.

A Greens candidate at the last federal election used Twitter to publish this: “Andrew Bolt is a vile c … of a man. I openly condone hunting him down and beating him to within an inch of his life.” (source)

But hey, Bolt’s fair game right? In the politically correct, groupthink world of ABC and Fairfax, Bolt is the very embodiment of the antichrist. What’s wrong with saying he should be done in?

Comments from the consensus side about their desired treatment of sceptics is of course all waved through without protests, such as these examples:

And conservative journalists are subjected to much the same abuse and threats as the climate scientists for daring to question shoddy and politicised science, or for having the temerity to question why we should be spending billions on a carbon tax which will do nothing for the climate, but we rarely hear anything about that.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Media Watch's Holmes on The Drum

31 May, 2012 by

Jonathan Holmes

Jonathan Holmes, presenter of Media Watch, writes a lengthy defence of his team’s reporting of the ANU death threats story on ABC’s The Drum. You can read it here.

The only point I am going to comment on is detail is the following claim:

In any case – and this is a factor which The Australian keeps dodging around, although it is crucial – the 11 emails were in fact irrelevant to the ANU scientists being moved to more secure offices, because that had happened 16 months earlier, in February 2010.

The Canberra Times’s Rosslyn Beeby no doubt knew this, but did not make it clear in her report. The ABC and the AAP don’t seem to have taken it aboard, and certainly didn’t report it back in June 2011. Simon Turnill didn’t understand it when he put in his FOI request.

Well actually, it’s nothing to do with understanding – Beeby didn’t make it clear, as Holmes states, if indeed she did “no doubt” know it. In any event, my FOI request was based on the ABC’s reporting of this event, which says:

Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.

I cannot see any way of construing the above to mean anything other than the following: death threats have been received at ANU in the last six months and we’ve moved staff as a result.

Holmes then quotes a number of emails, none of which contain “death threats”, but simply confirm the unfortunate truth that scientists (along with many others public figures) receive abusive emails from a tiny minority of disturbed individuals. This fact should not have been used as a way to tar all critics of the climate consensus as being a bunch of dangerously unhinged lunatics who would resort to sending death threats to climate scientists because they disagree with what they are saying (the inference – intended or unintended – from the Canberra Times and ABC reporting).

Holmes ends thus:

Who you believe on this matter – The Australian, or Media Watch – should have nothing at all to do with whether or not you accept what the vast majority of qualified scientists are telling us about climate change. 

Science by consensus again. And still the ANU haven’t produced evidence of any death threats to any staff at any time. They are welcome to do so whenever they like and then we’d all be happy to see an end to this farce.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»