Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Edifice of Climate Lunacy destroyed herein

VIEW THIS FIRST....
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/joannenovacomau-re-cc-in-oz.html
  • .................................................................................................................................
  • From: g87
    Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:43 PM
    Subject: Edifice of climate change destroyed herein
  • Edifice of Climate Lunacy destroyed herein


  • Things must be desperate in the edifice of the religion of climate change the government and it's disparate true believers are hopelessly flogging.
Peter C Doherty, University Of Melbourne  is now reduced to waving his Nobel Laureate in his second letter 29/8 Let's see the science.
Originally Doherty wrote to The Australian without the [Medical]  Nobel Laurearate nomenclature appended on 27/8.

Any reasonable reading of Joanne Nova's brilliant article, Manne is anti - science on climate - shows that our noble Medico deliberately ignores the plethora of evidence plainly showing that the so called  concensus amongst scientists is a fraud. The believers of this farce are on a prolix multifarious  gravy train AKA government grants, and only those who agree are participants in their surveys.
One could write a 100,000 word essay on this: it took me long enough to track down all the salient items between 25/8 and 29/8
But I guess Joanne Nova says it all on her blog dated 27/8
http://joannenova.com.au/
 When the Abbott revolution comes climate lunacy will be the first one to go: there must be billions of Dollars and scores of thousands of academics wasting their time, our money and the once proud  subject of science.

 Geoff Seidner




IT costs money to do science. Is Doug Hurst (Letters, 28/8) suggesting that the mass of weather, ocean and other data collected by the CSIRO and the BOM should not be analysed from the aspect of climate change?

Apart from our own needs, part of our global responsibility is surely to claim ownership of that science and make it broadly available. As a working biomedical scientist with no expertise in climate science, I take notice of findings by active researchers who deal with real data and publish in quality, peer-reviewed formats. Then, in the climate space, we are informed by websites from substantial agencies, like the CSIRO, the BOM, the US NOAA, the national academies and scientific societies like the American Geophysical Union, The Geological Society of America and the American Meteorological Society that have clearly stated positions. Nothing I read leaves me with a sense other than that the world's oceans and land masses are progressively warming, that we are rapidly losing ice cover at both poles, and that, globally, we are experiencing more extreme weather events with greater unpredictability.
If Doug Hurst has either an hypothesis or data that overturns the scientific consensus, he should publish so that competent investigators can scrutinise his analysis.
Peter C. Doherty, Nobel Laureate, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic
RATHER than arguing about whether humans are having a climate impact, we should be discussing whether more carbon dioxide is good or bad. Faced with a rapidly growing population and a potential food shortage, maybe a warmer, wetter world with enhanced plant growth feeding on higher carbon dioxide levels might be our saviour


 G. R. Ryan, Atherton, Qld
#################################################################################

Climate facts






  • The Australian 
  • August 28, 2012 12:00AM
    •

    IN criticising Joanne Nova's commentary ("Manne is anti-science on climate", 25-26/8), Peter Doherty (Letters, 27/8) tells us that "every significant science academy supports the case made by the climate science community" but doesn't tell us what that case is.
    If the case is past forecasts by climate scientists of dangerous and unprecedented increases in temperature, sea level and extreme weather incidents then the good professor should check the facts.
    Endless alarmist forecasts in these areas have not come within a bull's roar of reality. The temperature (according to satellite data) has remained virtually constant for 15 years despite rising carbon dioxide levels, the sea-level increase rate is tiny and slowing, and the incidence of severe storms has fallen in the past decade.
    Good science should produce good predictions and we are clearly not dealing with good science with much of the climate community. Nova is right to point this out, along with the fact that most climate alarmists are funded by government and most sceptics are independent of politics and not dependent on study grants and government jobs to pay their bills.


     Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT

    #################################################################################

    Climate scientists are not failing to convince others






  • The Australian 
  • August 27, 2012 12:00AM
    •
    Every significant science academy supports the case made by the climate science community. These academies encompass the full spectrum of science and members are elected by merit.
    As a researcher in immunobiology, I watch the climate field from the sideline, go to some seminars, talk to scientists, monitor key websites and read leading journals such as Science and Nature.
    Climate researchers are rigorous and conservative, and I don't see anything that gives me unease. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, for example, input 50,000 pieces of new data every day. These are the people who dedicate their lives to grappling with the massive experiment we're doing with our atmosphere. Unlike my field, this is an experiment that can never be repeated.
    Peter C. Doherty, Medical School, University of Melbourne, Vic

    ############################################################################


    Manne is anti-science on climate






  • JOANNE NOVA 
  • From:The Australian 
  • August 25, 2012 12:00AM
    •
    Robert Manne
    Robert Manne thinks internet surveys of scientists are a valid way to test whether planetary atmospheric dynamics is changing in dangerous and unprecedented ways. Picture: Aaron Francis Source: The Australian
    ROBERT Manne declares in the current issue of The Monthly that the "Denialists are Victorious" but his sole reasoning that the victorious are "deniers" is merely that some chosen experts tell us a disaster is coming and he feels they could not possibly be wrong.
    Argument from authority is a fallacy known for 2000 years, and it is a key point; it is the disguise of the witchdoctor - "Trust me, I am the chosen one". The one defining difference between science and religion is that the devout can argue from authority but the scientific cannot. In science there are no gods and there is no Bible - what matters is the evidence. The highest experts may declare the world is headed for catastrophe, but if 3000 thermometers in ocean buoys disagree (and they do: see the Argo program), the scientist questions the opinions and goes with the observations.
    Manne thinks internet surveys of scientists are a valid way to test whether planetary atmospheric dynamics is changing in dangerous and unprecedented ways. It's an anti-science position. Since the dawn of time, tribal witchdoctors have been forecasting storms and asking us to pay tribute to their idols. Debate of climate science has descended into abject farce.

    To understand the danger of quoting surveys of scientists, let's look at the three Manne names.
    The first (Anderegg) is a blacklist of "good guys" and "bad guys" in the world of science. It doesn't measure the climate, but it is a reasonable proxy for government grants. Just add up the salaries of all the believers v the unconvinced and the ratio would be similar.
    The US government bestowed $79 billion (1990-2009) on scientists who looked for a crisis, but very little on those looking for natural causes or holes in the theory. It is a non-event of no proportions that 

    there are more believers publishing papers than sceptics, and the ratio is similar to the funding (though quite a few sceptics manage to publish despite having no tenure, no staff, and no easy access to data). The number of papers tells us nothing about the quality of the research: it's not hard to write papers that are irrelevant or repetitive, or the output of another flawed climate simulation.
    His approved "climate scientists" might as well be a list of anointed preachers of the Cult of Climate Science. The esteemed?
    The second, Doran and Zimmerman, was a two-minute survey sent to 10,257 scientists, but the figure of "97 per cent of climate scientists" came from only 77 people who were deemed to be "qualified" (75 of 77 agreed).
    Climate scientists are failing to convince scientists from other disciplines (who usually have no vested interest in the outcome). The petition project shows that 31,500 scientists (including 9000 PhDs) disagree with the 75 in the government-anointed official climate science positions.
    The petition does not tell us about the "truth" of the climate either, but it rather makes a mockery of the idea of a consensus. Sure, the opinion of a climate scientist is worth more than the opinion of a physicist, but is each climate scientist worth more than 420 other scientists? Who knows? The answer to that is that it's a stupid question. We won't know anything for sure about the effect of trace gases by researching opinions of hominids. Instead, we ought pay attention to weather balloons and satellites, or ice cores and pollen assays.
    Manne also quotes Naomi Oreskes, author of The Merchants of Doubt; her work was equivalent to a Google search on words in scientific papers. Again, confused researchers study proxies for grants instead of proxies for temperature. Oreskes and Manne posit the unlikely conspiracy that oil funds dominate the debate (as if Exxon were funding thousands of dissenting scientists).
    Government funding out-spends oil giants by 3500 to 1 (or more). Oreskes can name virtually no significant funding for sceptics, who are almost all unpaid volunteers, working out of professional and patriotic duty, appalled by the illogical, anti-science sentiments of people such as Oreskes and Manne.
    Manne treats climate scientists as if they were infallible gods of science. They-who-must-not-be-questioned have issued their decree and anyone who questions is a denier. Manne's petty name-calling shows how unintellectual his arguments are.
    This adulation of individuals and tests of character, "success", or popularity is the antithesis of what the great brains-trust of science ought to do. In science, all minds test theories against the universe, and only the real world matters. The petty world of human reputations is steeped in bias and conflicts of interest, with personality defects and political power grabs, not to mention the corrupting influence of money.
    Science achieved success for civilisation by freeing us from exactly this cesspool of complexity, to rise above the posturing and consider only impartial observations. There is a good reason the club of climate scientists are failing to convince other scientists - their evidence is weak - and any good scientist can see that.
    Science is not a democracy. Natural laws don't form because anyone says so, and the only way to find out the answer is to look at the measurements from the planet, not from the people.
    Joanne Nova is a graduate in molecular biology and former associate lecturer in science communication at ANU. Her blog is read by 450,000 people a year from 200 countries:joannenova.com.au


    Posted by at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)