The following was recently posted by shock jock Andrew Bolt who has just been given his own TV program by Australia’s richest person, mining billionaire Gina Rinehart. For those overseas – Greg Combet is our Federal Minister for Climate Change. For those wondering why the reference to “Redneck Wonderland” go here and here.
Note that the ‘experts’ that he refers to are unqualified and unpublished in the peer-reviewed literature associated with the majority of expert areas behind their claims. Good choice Andrew – I guess they match your expertise on climate change and its impacts. Wouldn’t want to have a real expert disagree with you!
————————————————————
Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth identify 10 errors in Climate Change Greg Combet’s big speech last week on his carbon dioxide tax.
Go here for their explanations, but these are the 10 falsehoods Combet uttered:
1. The evidence of atmospheric warming is very strong, and the potential for dangerous climate impacts is high. The scientific advice is that carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is the cause.
2. Globally, 2010 was the warmest year on record, with 2001 to 2010 the warmest decade. 2010 is the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th-century average.
3. In Australia, each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade. With rising temperatures we can expect to see more extreme weather events, including more frequent and intense droughts, floods and bushfires.
4. The environmental consequences translate readily into economic costs – as well as potential negative impacts on water security, coastal development, infrastructure, agriculture, and health.
5. Professor Will Steffen, a leading expert in the climate science, has advised the Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change that there is 100% certainty that the earth is warming, and that there is a very high level of certainty it will continue to warm unless efforts are made to reduce the levels of carbon (sic) pollution (sic) being sent into the atmosphere.
6. It is in our national interest to take action on climate change. The national interest case is clear.
7. Climate change is an environmental problem with an economic solution.
8. Just as the 1980s reforms laid down the bedrock of our current prosperity, pricing carbon (sic) will ensure that the Australian economy of the 21st century remains globally competitive.
9. Intergenerational equity is a key determinant of long-term economic policy making. Our obligation is to leave the world a better place, not to pass on the problems we found too difficult to deal with to our grandchildren and to their grandchildren.
10. Australia is one of the world’s top 20 polluters and we release more pollution per person than any other country in the developed world – more than the US. Not only is it in our national interest to act, we have a responsibility to do so.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/combets_10_big_errors/
UPDATE:
Someone has claimed that Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth have published in the peer-reviewed literature and that I should therefore apologise or issue a correction.
I will do neither. But here is a clarification and some evidence.
Bob Carter, Dave Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth have not published their scientific propositions (that underpin the 10 putative ‘errors’ Bolt has pointed to) in the peer-reviewed literature. This is crucial if we are to separate fact from opinion.
Let’s take the first allegation. According to these individuals, they say that Minister Combet was wrong to have said the following:
The evidence of atmospheric warming is very strong, and the potential for dangerous climate impacts is high. The scientific advice is that carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is the cause.
According to Carter et al., however:
Atmospheric warming and cooling happen the whole time naturally, and global temperature has been level or cooling gently for the last ten years; and that despite the fact that a quarter of all human emissions of carbon dioxide, over all of history, have occurred since 1998.
And so on … anthropogenic climate change is not happening … read the rest here.
Given such strong opinions, you would expect that the 4 experts would have published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature extensively on subjects like climate change, presenting data from their own expertise that support arguments that climate change is or is not happening.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Let us go and explore the Gold standard for collecting and collating peer-reviewed scientific information, Thomson Reuters Institute for Scientific Information, and see how many times that these four ‘experts’ have published in the expert literature since 1999. If they were bone fide experts then they would be listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge many times under papers in which they have tested their ideas with the expert scientific community.
This is what you find when you explore the data for real experts. For example, Prof David Karoly of the University of Melbourne (lead author within the IPCC) has had over 10 publications since 1999 that directly address his conclusions regarding climate change and atmospheric physics. Prof Lesley Hughes, who is an expert on the impacts of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems in Australia, has 32 peer-reviewed publications since 1999. And these individuals have gone through the very stringent reviewing process of the IPCC several times over. This process helps ensure scientific rigour within the evidence collected and the conclusions drawn. It also ensures that the general conclusions drawn reflect the scientific community and not a gut feeling or unsubstantiated opinion.
Here it is what happens when you search for peer-reviewed papers by the ‘experts’ listed by Bolt on climate change in the ISI Web of knowledge database.
- 1. Searching for articles by ‘R M Carter’ since 1999: One publication on climate variability which later found to be seriously flawed and misleading. Full details, go here and here. So – the number of peer-reviewed articles that have passed scientific muster in the relevant field of climate change since 1999 is 0.
- Searching for articles by Evans, D (apparently a past consultant to the Greenhouse Office). Searching was complicated by his name being rather universal, so I restricted the field to in peer-reviewed paper by Evans that mentioned the word ‘climate’. Number of articles since 1999 in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change is 0.
- I had to also restrict the field for Franks S (a hydrological engineer at the University of Newcastle). Searching for articles by Franks with the word ‘climate’ yielded one article “Regional hydrological impacts of climate change – hydroclimatic variability” which doesn’t present or test the idea that climate change is or is not happening or any of the other of the notions from the list of 10 errors. So, the number of articles by Assoc Prof Franks since 1999 that involve peer review of his claims that climate change is not happening is 0.
- Searching for articles by Kininmonth W was a lot easier given the more unique nature of his name and yielded no peer-reviewed research literature. Again, however, the number of peer-reviewed papers generated by Kininmonth since 1999 that test his claims that climate change is not happening is 0.
That makes 0, 0, 0 and 0.
So, on issues like atmospheric physics or impacts of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems, Minister Combet is correct in listening closely to David Karoly and not Bob Carter, and listening closely to Lesley Hughes and not Stewart Franks.
Someone wrote the following in our staff room:
Hathos:
As inextricable fascination with something you hate.
eg. Andrew Bolt’s writing.
That’s the key to his success, I fear; like Pauline Hanson, he appeals to the lowest common denominator, but unlike Pauline, he is part of the media / entertainment, so also attracts people with a fully functional brain through hathos.
In all respects it’s a lose-lose situation; follow his work and rebut the nonsense – he gets attention. Ignore it and it still gets attention from those he naturally appeals to.
I’ve had to, for my own sanity, ignore his work. Everything that man talks about remotely environmentally orientated sickens me for it’s sheer ignorance.
How is calling people “red necks” not racial vilification?
What, lyrics from a Midnight Oil song about people with sunburned necks? Hardly racial vilification. Not my words, anyway.
How is “red neck” remotely racial in any context? It’s not genetic, but at best a loose demographic label with many potential meanings.
Exactly. Racial … no. It does, however, have the connotation of ‘ignorant’ … which is apt here.
Every so often the only word that comes to mind fails to do the meaning justice..
I just followed the “Go here for their explanations” link. That these apparently scientifically educated blokes can still write, mid 2011, some of the most outdated denial memes is staggering – ‘ignorant’ just isn’t strong enough.
Just checking, are you saying Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth are unpublished in the peer reviewed literature?
Seems their CVs don’t support this contention. Ove, if this is what you meant it seems an apology and a correction is in order.
Neither. See the update above. When you go into the scientific literature and ask the question, how many peer-reviewed publications have Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth have that have tested their claims as listed by Andrew Bolt, the big number is 0.
Do it yourself, go to IS Web of Knowledge and search for these individuals as I have done in the update listed above. Then repeat the exercise for Prof Lesley Hughes, Prof David Karoly or other experts within the field of climate change and its impacts. You can even search for me and see if I’m a credible expert or not.
Ove, I searched the link you provided for your name and got the following response:
Your search – Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing “Ove Hoegh-Guldberg”.
You must be using it incorrectly. When I do the same search on the ISI Web of Knowledge (using the web of science option) and put in “Hoegh-Guldberg” I get 154 articles that I have published since 1999. Here are the top 50:
1. Title: Coral reef ecosystems and anthropogenic climate change
Author(s): Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE Volume: 11 Pages: S215-S227 Supplement: Suppl. 1 Published: MAR 2011
Times Cited: 1
2. Title: Revisiting climate thresholds and ecosystem collapse
Author(s): Mumby PJ, Iglesias-Prieto R, Hooten AJ, et al.
Source: FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Pages: 94-96 Published: MAR 2011
Times Cited: 0
3. Title: Regulation of Apoptotic Mediators Reveals Dynamic Responses to Thermal Stress in the Reef Building Coral Acropora millepora
Author(s): Pernice M, Dunn SR, Miard T, et al.
Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Article Number: e16095 Published: JAN 24 2011
Times Cited: 0
4. Title: Climate change impedes scleractinian corals as primary reef ecosystem engineers
Author(s): Wild C, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Naumann MS, et al.
Source: MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH Volume: 62 Issue: 2 Pages: 205-215 Published: 2011
Times Cited: 0
5. Title: Complex Diel Cycles of Gene Expression in Coral-Algal Symbiosis
Author(s): Levy O, Kaniewska P, Alon S, et al.
Source: SCIENCE Volume: 331 Issue: 6014 Pages: 175-175 Published: JAN 14 2011
Times Cited: 0
6. Title: Gene expression profiles of cytosolic heat shock proteins Hsp70 and Hsp90 from symbiotic dinoflagellates in response to thermal stress: possible implications for coral bleaching
Author(s): Rosic NN, Pernice M, Dove S, et al.
Source: CELL STRESS & CHAPERONES Volume: 16 Issue: 1 Pages: 69-80 Published: JAN 2011
Times Cited: 0
7. Title: Shallow-water wave lensing in coral reefs: a physical and biological case study
Author(s): Veal CJ, Carmi M, Dishon G, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 213 Issue: 24 Pages: 4304-4312 Published: DEC 15 2010
Times Cited: 0
8. Title: Increasing the accuracy of surface area estimation using single wax dipping of coral fragments
Author(s): Veal CJ, Carmi M, Fine M, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Pages: 893-897 Published: DEC 2010
Times Cited: 0
9. Title: The Capricorn Eddy: a prominent driver of the ecology and future of the southern Great Barrier Reef
Author(s): Weeks SJ, Bakun A, Steinberg CR, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Pages: 975-985 Published: DEC 2010
Times Cited: 0
10. Title: Presence of Symbiodinium spp. in macroalgal microhabitats from the southern Great Barrier Reef
Author(s): Venera-Ponton DE, Diaz-Pulido G, Rodriguez-Lanetty M, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Pages: 1049-1060 Published: DEC 2010
Times Cited: 0
11. Title: Analysis of evolutionarily conserved innate immune components in coral links immunity and symbiosis
Author(s): Kvennefors ECE, Leggat W, Kerr CC, et al.
Source: DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMPARATIVE IMMUNOLOGY Volume: 34 Issue: 11 Pages: 1219-1229 Published: NOV 2010
Times Cited: 0
12. Title: Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services
Author(s): Mooney H, Larigauderie A, Cesario M, et al.
Source: CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Pages: 46-54 Published: OCT 2009
Times Cited: 6
13. Title: Making a Model Meaningful to Coral Reef Managers in a Developing Nation: a Case Study of Overfishing and Rock Anchoring in Indonesia
Author(s): Maynard JA, Anthony KRN, Afatta S, et al.
Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Volume: 24 Issue: 5 Pages: 1316-1326 Published: OCT 2010
Times Cited: 1
14. Title: Dangerous shifts in ocean ecosystem function?
Author(s): Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: ISME JOURNAL Volume: 4 Issue: 9 Pages: 1090-1092 Published: SEP 2010
Times Cited: 0
15. Title: Acute tissue death (white syndrome) affects the microenvironment of tabular Acropora corals
Author(s): Andersen SB, Vestergaard ML, Ainsworth TD, et al.
Source: AQUATIC BIOLOGY Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Pages: 99-104 Published: 2010
Times Cited: 0
16. Title: A comparative study of methods for surface area and three-dimensional shape measurement of coral skeletons
Author(s): Veal CJ, Holmes G, Nunez M, et al.
Source: LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY-METHODS Volume: 8 Pages: 241-253 Published: MAY 2010
Times Cited: 1
17. Title: Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification
Author(s): Pelejero C, Calvo E, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION Volume: 25 Issue: 6 Pages: 332-344 Published: JUN 2010
Times Cited: 4
18. Title: The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems
Author(s): Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF
Source: SCIENCE Volume: 328 Issue: 5985 Pages: 1523-1528 Published: JUN 18 2010
Times Cited: 9
19. Title: Genetic Divergence across Habitats in the Widespread Coral Seriatopora hystrix and Its Associated Symbiodinium
Author(s): Bongaerts P, Riginos C, Ridgway T, et al.
Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 5 Issue: 5 Article Number: e10871 Published: MAY 27 2010
Times Cited: 2
20. Title: The relative contribution of dinoflagellate photosynthesis and stored lipids to the survivorship of symbiotic larvae of the reef-building corals
Author(s): Harii S, Yamamoto M, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: MARINE BIOLOGY Volume: 157 Issue: 6 Pages: 1215-1224 Published: JUN 2010
Times Cited: 1
21. Title: Assessing the ‘deep reef refugia’ hypothesis: focus on Caribbean reefs
Author(s): Bongaerts P, Ridgway T, Sampayo EM, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 29 Issue: 2 Pages: 309-327 Published: JUN 2010
Times Cited: 3
22. Title: Bacterial Communities of Two Ubiquitous Great Barrier Reef Corals Reveals Both Site- and Species-Specificity of Common Bacterial Associates
Author(s): Kvennefors ECE, Sampayo EM, Ridgway T, et al.
Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 5 Issue: 4 Article Number: e10401 Published: APR 29 2010
Times Cited: 1
23. Title: Stramenopile Microorganisms Associated with the Massive Coral Favia sp.
Author(s): Siboni N, Rasoulouniriana D, Ben-Dov E, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY Volume: 57 Issue: 3 Pages: 236-244 Published: MAY-JUN 2010
Times Cited: 0
24. Title: Long-standing environmental conditions, geographic isolation and host-symbiont specificity influence the relative ecological dominance and genetic diversification of coral endosymbionts in the genus Symbiodinium
Author(s): LaJeunesse TC, Pettay DT, Sampayo EM, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY Volume: 37 Issue: 5 Pages: 785-800 Published: MAY 2010
Times Cited: 9
25. Title: Differential Regulation by Heat Stress of Novel Cytochrome P450 Genes from the Dinoflagellate Symbionts of Reef-Building Corals
Author(s): Rosic NN, Pernice M, Dunn S, et al.
Source: APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY Volume: 76 Issue: 9 Pages: 2823-2829 Published: MAY 2010
Times Cited: 2
26. Title: Heating rate and symbiont productivity are key factors determining thermal stress in the reef-building coral Acropora formosa
Author(s): Middlebrook R, Anthony KRN, Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 213 Issue: 7 Pages: 1026-1034 Published: APR 2010
Times Cited: 3
27. Title: A method for extracting a high-quality RNA from Symbiodinium sp.
Author(s): Rosic NN, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Pages: 139-146 Published: APR 2010
Times Cited: 4
28. Title: Early molecular responses of coral larvae to hyperthermal stress (vol 18, pg 5101, 2009)
Author(s): Rodriguez-Lanetty M, Harii S, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: MOLECULAR ECOLOGY Volume: 19 Issue: 5 Pages: 1071-1071 Published: MAR 10 2010
Times Cited: 0
29. Title: The impact of benthic algae on the settlement of a reef-building coral
Author(s): Diaz-Pulido G, Harii S, McCook LJ, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Pages: 203-208 Published: MAR 2010
Times Cited: 5
30. Title: Broadcast spawning patterns of Favia species on the inshore reefs of Thailand
Author(s): Kongjandtre N, Ridgway T, Ward S, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Pages: 227-234 Published: MAR 2010
Times Cited: 0
31. Title: Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery
Author(s): Diaz-Pulido G, McCook LJ, Dove S, et al.
Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 4 Issue: 4 Article Number: e5239 Published: APR 22 2009
Times Cited: 14
32. Title: Coral Skeletons Defend against Ultraviolet Radiation
Author(s): Reef R, Kaniewska P, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 4 Issue: 11 Article Number: e7995 Published: NOV 25 2009
Times Cited: 1
33. Title: Early molecular responses of coral larvae to hyperthermal stress
Author(s): Rodriguez-Lanetty M, Harii S, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: MOLECULAR ECOLOGY Volume: 18 Issue: 24 Pages: 5101-5114 Published: DEC 2009
Times Cited: 10
34. Title: The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of < 350 ppm CO2
Author(s): Veron JEN, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Lenton TM, et al.
Source: MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN Volume: 58 Issue: 10 Pages: 1428-1436 Published: OCT 2009
Times Cited: 25
35. Title: Effect of colony size and surrounding substrate on corals experiencing a mild bleaching event on Heron Island reef flat (southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
Author(s): Ortiz JC, Gomez-Cabrera MD, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 28 Issue: 4 Pages: 999-1003 Published: DEC 2009
Times Cited: 1
36. Title: Assisted migration: part of an integrated conservation strategy
Author(s): Vitt P, Havens K, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION Volume: 24 Issue: 9 Pages: 473-474 Published: SEP 2009
Times Cited: 4
37. Title: Photoreactivation is the main repair pathway for UV-induced DNA damage in coral planulae
Author(s): Reef R, Dunn S, Levy O, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 212 Issue: 17 Pages: 2760-2766 Published: SEP 1 2009
Times Cited: 2
38. Title: Climate change and coral reefs: Trojan horse or false prophecy?
Author(s): Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 28 Issue: 3 Pages: 569-575 Published: SEP 2009
Times Cited: 2
39. Title: Stability of coral-endosymbiont associations during and after a thermal stress event in the southern Great Barrier Reef
Author(s): Stat M, Loh WKW, LaJeunesse TC, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 28 Issue: 3 Pages: 709-713 Published: SEP 2009
Times Cited: 7
40. Title: Response of two species of Indo-Pacific corals, Porites cylindrica and Stylophora pistillata, to short-term thermal stress: The host does matter in determining the tolerance of corals to bleaching
Author(s): Fitt WK, Gates RD, Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MARINE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Volume: 373 Issue: 2 Pages: 102-110 Published: MAY 31 2009
Times Cited: 13
41. Title: Bacterial communities closely associated with coral tissues vary under experimental and natural reef conditions and thermal stress
Author(s): Ainsworth TD, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: AQUATIC BIOLOGY Volume: 4 Issue: 3 Pages: 289-296 Published: 2009
Times Cited: 5
42. Title: Phototropic growth in a reef flat acroporid branching coral species
Author(s): Kaniewska P, Campbell PR, Fine M, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 212 Issue: 5 Pages: 662-667 Published: MAR 1 2009
Times Cited: 4
43. Title: Effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems Introduction
Author(s): Vezina AF, Hoegh-Guldberg O
Source: MARINE ECOLOGY-PROGRESS SERIES Volume: 373 Pages: 199-201 Published: 2008
Times Cited: 5
44. Title: The big ecological questions inhibiting effective environmental management in Australia
Author(s): Morton SR, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Lindenmayer DB, et al.
Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 34 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-9 Published: FEB 2009
Times Cited: 12
45. Title: Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders
Author(s): Anthony KRN, Kline DI, Diaz-Pulido G, et al.
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 105 Issue: 45 Pages: 17442-17446 Published: NOV 11 2008
Times Cited: 69
46. Title: Imaging the fluorescence of marine invertebrates and their associated flora
Author(s): Ainsworth TD, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Leggat W
Source: JOURNAL OF MICROSCOPY-OXFORD Volume: 232 Issue: 2 Pages: 197-199 Published: NOV 2008
Times Cited: 0
47. Title: Symbiont acquisition strategy drives host-symbiont associations in the southern Great Barrier Reef
Author(s): Stat M, Loh WKW, Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 27 Issue: 4 Pages: 763-772 Published: DEC 2008
Times Cited: 12
48. Title: Linkages between coral assemblages and coral proxies of terrestrial exposure along a cross-shelf gradient on the southern Great Barrier Reef
Author(s): Jupiter S, Roff G, Marion G, et al.
Source: CORAL REEFS Volume: 27 Issue: 4 Pages: 887-903 Published: DEC 2008
Times Cited: 10
49. Title: Where Species Go, Legal Protections Must Follow Response
Author(s): Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, Mcintyre S, et al.
Source: SCIENCE Volume: 322 Issue: 5904 Pages: 1049-1050 Published: NOV 14 2008
Times Cited: 1
50. Title: Early cellular changes are indicators of pre-bleaching thermal stress in the coral host
Author(s): Ainsworth TD, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Heron SF, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MARINE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Volume: 364 Issue: 2 Pages: 63-71 Published: OCT 3 2008
Times Cited: 9
A lot there on coral, Ove but nothing that appears to qualify you as expert enough to respond to the wider issues raised by the four scientists you severely defame above.
I recall a university geologist falling back on “argument from authority” to try and settle a geological debate in the 1990s. The gist of this was that he had published more than the other, therefore his theory had more credibility. The physical evidence eventually blew his published papers to pieces, and his theory went with it. Seems quality trumps quantity. Something similar is occurring in the debate as to the severity of man’s impact on the climate. From inside the echo chamber it’s hard to notice what’s going on outside.
Ah yes but you’ve missed my major point. People point to me when we’re talking about climate change and coral reefs – that is something I know about and my ideas have been tested in the peer-reviewed literature (as you can see). I don’t stand up and claim that I know about past climate variability, atmospheric physics or other key issues. When speaking of those matters, I defer to the IPCC (the most credible consensus on the science) or to appropriate experts with long track records of achievement and peer review within the scientific field in question. That does not include Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth.
Professor Bob Carter – I get 34 papers since 1999
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
William Robert Kininmonth is a retired Australian meteorologist From 1986 to 1998 he headed Australia’s National Climate Centre, monitoring Australia’s changing climate and advising government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He coordinated the scientific and technical review of the 1997-98 El Niño event for the World Meteorological Organization and its input to the United Nations Task Force on El Niño. As a member of Australia’s delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent negotiations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-92) he had a close association with the early developments of the climate change debate.
Associate Professor Stewart Franks – I count 26 papers since 1999.
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/research/expertise/136652.html
Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.
No wonder you keep making predictions that fail to materialise as your research skills are obviously appalling.
The issue here is whether these individuals have published the ideas that they present in the Quadrant article in the peer-reviewed literature.
If they haven’t, then the ideas are untested by the scientific community.
I am not denying that Bob Carter, William Kininmonth, and Stewart Franks have published peer-reviewed articles on unrelated issues. As my analysis shows, however, they have published on either peripheral or completely unrelated topics. Let’s take Bob Carter’s track record in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Bob has published 29 peer-reviewed papers on subjects mostly to do with sedimentology that are without doubt worthy contributions to this field but are unrelated to the areas that he offered expert opinion on in the Quadrant article. As I pointed out, he did publish one paper in 2008 with McLean as first author which was later shown to be seriously flawed and completely erroneous in its conclusions by a number of distinguished atmospheric scientists with long track records.
The rest of papers on the list are opinion pieces in non-scientific journals (Economic Analysis & Policy, World Economics etc). None of these articles have tested the core conclusions of the Quadrant article.
William Kininmonth is retired as you point out is retired and has not published in the peer-reviewed literature for some time – and consequently has not tested his ideas within the scientific community. All we can say is that he has offered some untested opinions in this case.
David Evans may have many degrees and may be an excellent mathematician and engineer. But he has not published his ideas in scientific journals and therefore they remain opinions as well.
And finally, Stewart Franks, who has also published extensively on subjects such as hydrology, hydrologic modelling and natural variability in the hydrological cycle. There is no doubt he is qualified and published in these important areas. But he is – like me – is unqualified and unpublished in areas such as atmospheric physics, satellite measurements, and many of the other areas that he and the other three claim to have expert opinions in. And most of all, they like me have not published in the peer-reviewed literature on these topics and have therefore not properly tested the ideas they are putting forward.
And like the others, Associate professor Franks does not have expertise in areas such as coastal processes, sea level rise, agriculture, urban planning, infrastructure, coastal geomorphology, economics, meteorology, long-term climate records, satellite measurements, atmospheric physics, attribution of climate change, and understanding of long-term trends in weather systems.
This expertise is needed if you are to back up the statements made in the Quadrant article.
If only the argument was simply about who has the most number of published, peer reviewed papers. Getting colleagues who already agree with your hypothesis to review your paper is not much of a challenge. At no point has the null hypothesis – that the warming trend since the 18th century is due to natural variation consistent with long term trends – been disproven. The main hypothesis – that anthropogenic C02 is causingg a warming of the earth’s atmosphere – is easily falsified because the propsed mechanisms have retrospective predictive value. That is, they cannot account for previous known warm periods in human history. There can be no special pleading that ‘it’s different now”, because the laws of physics are the laws of physics, and do not change to suit the priorities of the researcher.
You have missed my point – experimental methodology is completely irrelevant and the silly smokescreen.
This is about four individuals (Franks, Evans, Carter and Kininmonth) who claimed to have a credible alternative that is superior to the scientific consensus and ruminations of BOM, CSIRO, NASA, NOAA and a whole host of other highly reputable scientific organisations. This about 4 individuals that actually haven’t had their relatively non-expert opinions tested in the peer-reviewed literature.
Basically, the concept of ‘snake oil’ comes to mind.
Clearly, if I had a chiropractic issue, I would go to a chiropractor not a motor mechanic or a medical professional.
apologies: the above should say “..no retrospective predictive value..”
If former premier Peter Beattie had listened to hydrologist Stewart Framks instead of the likes of rabid alarmist activists like David Karoly and Tim Flannery, Brisbane could have properly prepared for the major flood he correctly predicted and would not have suffered near the loss of life and devastating damage that occurred.
They would not have been too frightened to release Wivenhoe Dam water at the proper time and lessen the flood effects, nor would they now have a useless, enormously expensive mothballed desal plant.
Open your eyes Ove. The UNIPCC AGW scam is crashing round your ears!
Yet another unproven mythology re; Dr Franks and his expert opinion – this time – on dam levels!
KeithH – wake-up. Several thousand scientists, many with Nobel laureates, many in the top scientific agencies across the planet, are unlikely to be wrong.
Climate change cannot simply be wished away by burying your head in the sand!
Ove, The biggest problem with all of your self congratulation is that your various predictions on the demise of coral reefs, I recall something about one half of the reefs in the Indian ocean disappearing, appear to be all duds. This would put you in the same catagory as “we are now in permentant drought” Tim Flannery. Why should we accept your scribbling any more than his, just because you managed to convince your mates at some magazine that you know what you are talking about?
CameronH – you need to read the literature rather than look in the mirror and endorse your own rhetoric. The majority of the 46% of Western Indian Ocean coral reefs damaged in 1998 have not recovered. Coral reefs are disappearing in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific at the rate of 1 to 2% per year – read the paper by Bruno and Selig (2007). Bruno, J.F., and Selig, E.R., 2007, Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: timing, extent, and subregional comparisons: PLoS ONE. , v. 2, p. e711. Perhaps you can direct me to a peer-reviewed that doesn’t say this for Coral reefs in SE Asia or the Western Indian Ocean.
Marc, if you’re concerned about an argument from authority, simply look at the arguments being made by Carter et al. A lot are political/value judgements, so I’ll just stick to a few objective assertions they make.
“global temperature has been level or cooling gently for the last ten years”- A very simple claim that’s very simply wrong (yet is made at least 3 times in the reply). Of GISS, HadCRUt, RSS, and UAH, all except HadCRUt have positive trends over the most recent 10 years of data. According to the group’s own argument, “the most accurate record of all is that measured from satellites”- both of which show an increase in temperature over the past 10 years. Choose a time period that actually shows statistical significance and all 4 also show an increase in temp to the present.
“all versions of the 20th century thermometer temperature record on which the Minister places his reliance are of limited accuracy and also encompass a warming bias”- A baseless assertion, that is again contrary to the actual data. Menne et al compared thermometer readings taken from stations labeled “good” by skeptics against those taken from stations labeled as “poor.” They found that there was a slight cooling bias in the record. Dr. Muller of Berkley’s BEST project recently repeated the exercise with “skeptic,” Anthony Watts’ endorsement… at least until Muller got the same result as Menne.
Despite the assertion by “skeptics” that there is a warming bias in thermometer records, none have produced an analysis that actually shows this.
In both cases where they make direct claims that can be tested objectively, their arguments fail. They’re 180 degrees from reality. That’s not an argument from authority. It’s an argument from data. They’re wrong regardless of their publication record.
Well said Mike G.
What really concerns me about some of the people here is that they’re just not reading and understanding what the science actually says. Lots of opinions and very little substance.
Your argument above applies equally to David Karoly and Lesley Hughes. The minister should be listening to a wide range of views and considering all the evidence, not just that selected for him by one group with vested interests.
By the way, anyone considering attending a chiropratic clinic needs their head checked. What next, Ove, an endorsement of homeopathy?
In regard to the IPCC this statement by Ross McKitrick appears relevant. Minister Combet would be wise to actively seek dissenting voices…
“Some people might be tempted to defend climatology by saying that normal scientific procedures have broken down due to the intense policy fights and political interference. But in my opinion that confuses cause and effect. The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures. The public has lost confidence in the ability of the major institutions of climatology, including the IPCC and the leading journals, to deal impartially with the evidence.”
See…http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/new-article-bias-in-the-peer-review-process-a-cautionary-and-personal-account-by-ross-mckittrick/
Mike G:
Temperature:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend
Sea Surface Temperature:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend
Sea Level: (just recently revealed)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/jason_tgcal_2010_rel41.jpg?w=610&h=425
You say no one has proven the temperature bias in global temperature records.
1 – here’s the proof for Australian Temps
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-australian-temperature-record-part-8-the-big-picture/
2 – New Zealand had their whole record scrapped because of temperature manipulation.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
Ove
http://www.reefbase.org/halmahera/default.aspx
What I find interesting is that Dr Peter Ridd appears to totally disagree with you on the GBR
alanjonesridd040210.mp3
Great … A shock jock and a scientist who has not published anything in the peer reviewed literature on his position relative to conclusions published by me in the scientific literature. Sort of lacks credibility doesn’t it?
Again, as I pointed out in my original post, HadCRUt is the only one of the 4 major global temperature series which shows a (statistically insignificant) decline over your chosen time period. Are we to believe that it’s merely a coincidence that that’s the only trend you choose to show? That certainly seems like an odd choice in light of Carter et al’s claim that satellite temperature records are the most accurate and the incessant bleating about how CRU (the CRU part of HadCRUt) scientists fudged the temperature records. One would almost be tempted to believe that you’ve cherrypicked the one record that seems to support your argument while ignoring the rest.
If Carter’s claim about the accuracy of the satellite series is true then why is that declining trend not seen in those satellite records? Perhaps you wish to argue that although the satellite records are the most accurate, they’re still not accurate enough to capture the true nature of global temperature, but in that case it’s just as damaging to Carter’s claim of a declining trend as it is to anyone else’s. If you cannot determine the real trend from even the most accurate record then you cannot determine that the real trend is a decline.
And what about the time interval of that “trend?” Why choose 2002 as the starting point rather than a date that gives a statistically significant trend? Go ahead, pick any interval ending at the present with a statistically significant trend in any of the global temp records. Tell us which way the trend is headed.
that should be:
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesridd040210.mp3
Mike G,
The BEST study has not been completed, it’s a little early to be quote mining it, when there is nothing yet published by the group in the peer reviewed literature. This is the basis of Ove’s argument with the four scientists he defames above.
In regard to recent temperature trends. The last decade has been effectively neutral. The overall trend for the last century is about 0.1 degree per decade. It effectively falsifies the current crop of IPCC climate models that are clearly overly conservative. That they are still being supported by the IPCC against the evidence suggests someone failed to get the memo on Popperian falsification. To borrow Ove’s words “the concept of ‘Snake oil’ comes to mind”
Defame … Hardly. Merely pointing out some important features of the type of experts that underpin these opinions.
Your questions re global temperature are easily answered … Why don’t you go to the web site for the answer (dig into the literature here).)
um….shock jock! – don’t you mean, Bachelor of Arts, Senior English Master at The King’s School at Parramatta, Oxford University Tennis Blue, ex speech writer for Malcolm Fraser, Executive Director of the Employers’ Federation of NSW and one of the most successful coaches of the Australian Rugby Union team, The Wallabies?….oh…AND No 1 rating breakfast programme for the past 10 years or so.
You seem totally confident in the peer review process as the only way to determine scientific credibility.
perhaps you should read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/20/bias-in-the-peer-review-process-a-cautionary-and-personal-account/
I guess if you act like a shock jock you are one. Have a look at this.
Ove raves about the need to cite peer reviewed literature then suggests a link to a blog. Wonderful irony mate.
MarcH. I said ‘dig into the literature here’ and pointed you to the Web site at Skeptical Science which gives you a simple answer and then shows you the key scientifically peer reviewed literature to understand the different points of view. It is an excellent resource.
Ove,
Perhaps the next IPCC report can just refer to that blog and save the world a lot of money. Or would that put you out of a job?
I had no idea you were such an ideologue. Now I know who you are, it all falls into place.
Maybe we could just get rid of all climate scientists & use experts like Christopher Monkton or Bjorn Lomborg eh?
Since when is Ove HG a climate expert? Coral yes, climate NO
Ove, I do not know how you can put up with such treatment. Great post though. It is a worry about the recovery rates of corals.
By the way MarcH – climate is the trend over 30 years; weather is what happens every day. You cannot look at 10 years and expect to get a significant measure of the trend. Anyway there are other measures that prove there is a forcing, such as the rate of heat loss from the upper atmosphere and the increasing heat stored in our oceans – these also show clear strong trends.
The point of the article is that people should be listening to the experts who are proven in the field not those who just have an opinion. If they cannot publish in the peer reviewed literature then it is unlikely they can be relied on.
Personally, I find the peer reviewed papers extremely convincing, in fact 100% convincing. I find the 4 mentioned have only their opinions. Their claims about the data are not supported by a close look at that data. In fact they are so totally wrong, I can’t help wondering how they can justify their opinions to themselves.
Only 30! And here I was looking at the last 100 years.
It appears some of your past papers are being questioned Ove: The non peer reviewed ones.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/
I love how ‘Rejects’ (seeing how they are so sensitive about the word denier and they do reject a lot of data) change their little lines of attack, not giving a damn about coming to a understanding of reality, just continually move the ‘shell’ around to always be contrary, no matter what, then they go back to ‘watts up his bolt’ land.
“The last decade has been effectively neutral.” It just happens to be the hottest decade ever recorded.
This is one of those Fred Astaire arguments. You’re now several metres from the ground. The fact that you danced about a bit rather than running straight to the top cannot alter that reality.
All the previous dancing about on the steps has already got you much higher than you started out at the bottom. If you keep on dancing at that level, you’re still a long way from where you started.
all “the hottest decade ever recorded” means is that there has been no warming throughout the decade – else you would have said it!
Ove, not sure if the authors of this piece ran this past your preferred source of climate science information. What was that source again? The IPCC? No that’s right, it was a blog.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/steffen-science-advice
Good job Ove, can I just say that you have done a great job on neutralizing the misinformation deniers have dished out on this thread.
Pure pwnage.
By the way, I like the new layout of the site.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg wrote:
In answer to the libelous “ka-ching” post, here is what was ‘conveniently’ missed:
A. The major conclusions of each review listed have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That means that the ideas survived scientific scrutiny (very different to the rubbish produced by Bolt, Carter and others). These papers are formed in part from 200 or so peer-reviewed articles that I have been responsible for. For details on the talented Australian-based scientists that I work with go to http://www.coralreefecosystems.org.
B. Each report went through rigorous scientific review and each bases its conclusions on hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. Look at the back of each study for the literature, names of reviewers and other details.
C. I have worked under scientific contract for a wide range of organizations including NASA, NOAA, Rio Tinto, ARC, UQ, several governments, Stanford University, Sydney University and so on. I think it is completely appropriate that I have given scientific advice to conservation groups as well.
How is that settled science going? “The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report,” noted Lorenzo M. Polvani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and co-author of the paper. “We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!”
“It’s really amazing that the ozone hole, located so high up in the atmosphere over Antarctica, can have an impact all the way to the tropics and affect rainfall there — it’s just like a domino effect,” said Sarah Kang, Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Columbia Engineering’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics and lead author of the paper.
The ozone hole is now widely believed to have been the dominant agent of atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere in the last half century. This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone— ozone needs to be considered, too. “This could be a real game-changer,” Polvani added.
“Kang et al 2011, Science Express
Abstract:
Over the past half-century, the ozone hole has caused a
poleward shift of the extratropical westerly jet in the
Southern Hemisphere. Here, we argue that these
extratropical circulation changes, resulting from ozone
depletion, have substantially contributed to subtropical
precipitation changes. Specifically, we show that
precipitation in the Southern subtropics in austral
summer increases significantly when climate models are
integrated with reduced polar ozone concentrations.
Furthermore, the observed patterns of subtropical
precipitation change, from 1979 to 2000, are very similar
to those in our model integrations, where ozone depletion
alone is prescribed. In both climate models and
observations, the subtropical moistening is linked to a
poleward shift of the extratropical westerly jet. Our
results highlight the importance of polar regions on the
subtropical hydrological cycle.
How is the temp anomaly for 2011? …down down down!
What is it the ARGO Buoys show about ocean temperature? ( flat to declining!!)
Ove, whose predictions about climate and its impacts have been more accurate? yours or the “4”…how are our extinct reefs going?
How is the decelarating increase in sea levels??
This article and combets comments are the cries of desperate men…..get those blinkers off
Well, Toby, if you only read a tiny part of the literature, which is what you’re doing here, you will not understand the full picture. Cherry-picking is a very bad way to go about understanding climate change and its impacts.
As for drawing a massive conclusion about the veracity of climate change science from the first four months of 2011, you astound me! Do you actually understand the distinction between weather and climate???
Yes Ove of course i understand the difference. My point is the science is clearly not settled and yet so many keep suggesting that it is. Peer review is a long way from perfect and it is quite clear that if you do not push the “party” line you dont get published…or at least its very hard. That doesnt stop these dissenting scientists from being right. You are defending combet who is pushing a clearly political agenda based on morals and bad politics rather than real solutions if indeed solutions are required. As Janama linked for you above if you pick the trend from 2002 temp is actually down. The rate of increase we are seeing will not bring us anywhere near any of the predicted temperature changes late this century…the same for sea levels and ocean temps have been falling overall ( though not in places like the coral sea…i agree). The point i make about the sudden drop in temperaure is cherry picking but my perception from thousands of hours of research on this topic is that is exactly what believers do in order to make their points.
It is inconvenient isnt it that temperatures have been declining, ocean temp declining, rate of sea lvl increase declining, no hot spot and all while emissions have climbed rapidly? ( science says when the evidence does not support the theory you either throw it out or modify it…you guys all just ignore it and go back to models!)
Then when we consider the medieval, roman and minoan warm periods in all likelhood being as warm or warmer than today it really does seem to be acting as a “shock jock” to push for urgent and dramatic action to be taken on carbon dioxide?
The shock jocks like hansen, hamilton, flannery and your own predictions about the demise of the barrier reef are all based on unproven science because the real world is not doing what you guys keep predicting. Your and others continual need to refer to the “thousands of scientists” is further evidence of the lack of real evidence. What about the tens of thousands of scientists who do not think carbon emissions are a significant problem?
The world has been warming up since the end of the little ice age…is it any wonder the warmest decades ( not in USA…OR GREENLAND OR MANY OTHER PLACES)appear over the last decades?
co2 may lead temperature but it certainly hasnt in the past it has always been a lagged effect…things could change but you need real evidence to convince most thinking people first!
the evidence for positive feedback is pretty thin on the ground whilst the evidence for negative feedback effects is everywhere…..so the real physics of co2 that suggest about a 1c increase for a doubling of co2 is likely to be much closer to the truth….and the current trend of about .1c per decade also gives us the same change.
There are of course many scientists currently suggesting we are in for some very cold times and perhaps the tornadoes are evidence of this cooler world?…given the sudden drop over the last 4 months?
our poor understanding of clouds is a potentially obvious way to explain temperature increases with only a very minor change in cloud cover and altitude . the science is not settled and the governments desire to lower living standards as a futile moral gesture is insane in my and many others opinion. My experience of most sceptics is they are far more informed of the real science and doubts than most rusted on believers.
“your own predictions about the demise of the barrier reef are all based on unproven science because the real world is not doing what you guys keep predicting”
Did you miss the massive bleaching events in Western Australia? Did you miss the bleaching events we’ve had over the past three decades? I guess one has to ask: how would you know? The inane mumblings of Andrew Bolt are not the real world. To understand problems with your viewpoint, recommend you have a look at this insightful documentary by the Prof Paul Nurse, head of the Royal Society of London: https://climateshifts.org/?p=6570.
“my perception from thousands of hours of research on this topic”. If this is where you’ve got after so much hard work, then I recommend that you stick with your day job.
You mean…….to tell me…….that Hansen, Hamilton & Flannery have their own radio shows?!!!!………Where? What channel, this is fantastic. Finaly, something to combat the 99.9999% of commercial talk back radio that deliberately misinforms their listeners on behalf of their sponsors, shareholders and political party.
Yes – good point Phil. Clive, Jim and Tim have a show! Great – at last some quality. I would love to tune in too!
(Toby – read papers by me and others to understand how wrong you are on the reef issue – it goes to the heart of your inability to distinguish weather (driving bleaching events) from climate (long term loss of reefs when we get beyond +2oC. If you don’t get that, then I can’t help you further).
What to say, the same stock standard response from those who are so sure they are right about something that is so clearly not understood. Some would call this insanity or stupidity.
Ive dived the barrier reef many times and yes their are patches of bleaching and nasty patches damaged by people using anchors to moor their boats. You have predicted the demise of the reef several times and yet it is still there. I note you ignore my facts about temperature, sea level rise et al because they are so inconvenient to your beliefs.
I started out a believer but can only shake my head in disbelief at the nonsense sprouted as evidence. I have even tried to bet with people like james annan when they were big noting themselves… but they had no interest.
I dont blame you for not responding to my main arguments because that would mean challenging your beliefs and it is abundantly clear that the “shock jocks” of the warming world have made up their minds and they are smarter than the rest of us…..Bolt makes your life hard because he uses facts…very inconvenient.
Andrew Dolt appeared on a daily TV show called ‘The Circle’ this morning. He was given a minor grilling by the show’s panel and huffity puffity women are upset about it and posting on the show’s Facebook page. Check it out:
http://www.facebook.com/CircleTV
Ove and Phil, your inability to see that the “shock jock” warmers i mentioned are that because of their gross exagerations and errors ( eg “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”…your words Ove….reality less than 1%!!, dams will never fill again flannery, no more skiing, arctic ice gone soon, hurricane activity to increase etc etc ). The fact that you cant see this supports my bias that you believers have no understanding of the big picture but rather the small things you focus on with the intention of proving warming allow you to see things others do not….because the bits prove ntg when the real numbers dont support it. If you really had evidence you would provide it but it is never forthcoming without a need for models to creat eyour scary scenarios. Most sceptics accept a marginal warming from additional co2 but ntg that warrants dramatic action.
At no time did i bring up bolt until you accused me of getting my info from him. I most certainly do not use him as a source but it must be very inconvenient when the media actually does focus on the reality of the poor predictions.
Ove if the world is warming up wouldnt you expect the water to warm and some damage to corals? or could it relate to other factors like UV rays due to ozone loss? We are told that the temp swings are unprecedented and the coral wont cope with the rapid changes in temperatures. There have been much more dramatic changes in temperature since the dalton and maunder minimums, it appears they survived the cooling and warming!
coral bleaching is not evidence of human enhanced warming.
once again i state the facts that ocean temps have been flat to declining since the argo buoys were introduced, sea level rise has slowed and the trend in satellite data has also been down since 2001..surely that should raise questions given the significant increase in co2?
The world does have a real problem and that is population.
People that fall back on the science is settled should be ashamed to call themselves scientists
Thx for the Horizon link I will watch it tomorrow.
Ove might i also suggest your suggestion that i do not understand that climate is over 30 years ( better to say long term) looks pretty silly when you look at a temp chart such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years look at chart since 1860…and it shows from 1880 to 1910 a decline from 1910-1945 ish a rise, from 1940-1975 ish a fall and then a rise over the last 30 years with it now levelling off…whats the bet the next 30 years is cool based on this cyclical trend?….and all the time co2 was rising…not a very strong correlation in reality is it?
I can apprceciate that you hold heart felt beliefs and believe you are fighting the right fight but from where i and so many others sit it seems far more like a belief system than reality….much like religion.
OK Toby, let’s review the facts. The modeling of climate has been successfully incorporated a range of different drivers (natural, anthropogenic) into temperature reconstructions. As I am sure you are aware (are you?), mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant as an argument against recent global warming. Three distinct periods are clear – warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but is interrupted an aerosol driven cooling trend from 1940 to 1975. If the atmospheric modeling community didn’t understand this, then we would not have the modeling community producing the results shown here in AR4 of the IPCC. And before you go on with some sort of conspiracy theory nonsense, the IPCC process is basically sound as found by the recent independent review.
Toby, I don’t know whether you’re just ignorant, but you can’t tackle someone like OveHG with the half-arsed understanding you seem to have of the climate. You can’t just eyeball a graph and call it a ‘cyclical trend’ without talking out of your backside. None of what you are saying is novel to anyone with half a grasp of climate science, and unsurprisingly there’s a fairly good explanation for your ‘issues’. Channel some of your ‘skepticism’ into actually understanding what you are trying to argue before looking like a fool. “Even during a period of long term warming, there are short periods of cooling due to climate variability. Short term cooling over the last few years is largely due to a strong La Nina phase in the Pacific Ocean and a prolonged solar minimum.”