The Little Skeptic

Snippets from Climategate 2.0

2011-11-25T20:31:00.001-08:00

Some snippets with commentary from the most recent batch of Climategate emails.

1. Email exchange between Phil Jones and Journalist. Jones answers in italics.

One of your speciality is paleoclimatology. It is necessary to study the dinosaur age to be able to predict the near future or which is the most outstanding period for studying?

No! The only recent period that is relevant for the future is the last 2000 years. For earlier periods back to the dinosaurs, the boundary conditions were different. The amount of day hours at different latitudes changes enough prior to 2000 years ago. Back with the dinosaurs the continents were in different positions.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2740.txt

Seems James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato would disagree!

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change

Planting the seeds of innovation in the Bureaucracies of today is a sure way to sprout the weeds of the tomorrow.

2011-11-17T10:30:00.001-08:00

This letter left on the cutting room floor at the Australian....

Dear Editor,
Bjorn Lomborg suggests spending a $100 billion a year on research into making renewables cost competitive with fossil fuels (Carbon tax a costly feel-good gesture that won't reduce emissions. 17/11). While I am supportive of the concept, and it makes much more sense than the government's economy destroying carbon tax; I can't help but be concerned that the offer of a large, long lived, cash cow and the prospect of permanent research jobs would only serve to create a bureaucracy that would stifle creativity and delay the great leap forward. Just look at the way climate science has hopelessly stumbled in recent years in explaining the travesty of the world's missing warming for instance, despite a healthy investment of tax payers dollars. So, rather than pump $100 billion into a bloated system every year, year in - year out, and risk a drawn out process of invention, why not offer a one off cash prize of $100 billion to the successful individual or consortium who delivers the breakthrough? Planting the seeds of innovation in the Bureaucracies of today is a sure way to sprout the weeds of the tomorrow.

Sherwood's Forest

2011-10-28T12:29:00.000-07:00

This Letter missed the cut at The Oz, in reply to an Op Ed piece by Steven Sherwood

Dear Editor,

That Steven Sherwood is unable to condense 50 years of investigation, paid for by billions of dollars of public research money (that may have been better spent elsewhere), into a succinct argument in favour of catastrophic man made warming is one of the clearest admissions of failure I have seen to date from a working climate scientist (Why experts refuse to debate climate science 28/10). Surprisingly Sherwood wants to debate the science in a court room, but he should know that debate in science is not like debate in the legal system as unlike a barrister, a scientist with integrity would give all the information, not just the information that leads to a judgment in one direction or another. A scientist with integrity does not pick cherries!

In the face of such inherent uncertainty, and apparent deep confusion about the manner in which science should be debated, the policy response favoured by the current government and the case for urgent, dramatic action being promulgated by activist scientists, politicians and our under qualified climate commissioners, is looking decidedly premature and lacking in solid foundation. In the long run I have faith that the scientific method, in the absence of political interference, will provide a definitive answer that will provide scientists convincing evidence about the future behaviour of the climate system, on which sound public policy might be developed and enacted. However until then, rather than risk a misdiagnosis and subsequent improper treatment of the problem, a prudent response is required that does not kill the patient. Such a response might involve taking measures to mitigate against current known weather extremes, and enacting policy to remove nonsensical political barriers to competing base load electricity generation such as thorium based nuclear reactors.

The Prince of Precaution

2011-08-17T18:33:00.000-07:00

The current print run of The Prince of Precaution has sold out. You can still view it on You Tube.

More copies once orders start to mount up!

find truth in the trends

2011-04-06T18:00:00.000-07:00

Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

Prof. Richard Muller (Testimony at the U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy 31/3/2011)

Some interesting trends above, which one best represents temperature in the vicinity of Melbourne?

Seems reasonable to ask the question

2011-03-03T02:14:00.000-08:00

From the cutting room floor at the Sydney Morning Herald...

Dear Editor,
Daniel Bray (Climate change is real. Let's deal with it, 3/3) asks the question: Given the long-standing scientific consensus, why is climate change an unreasoning issue? Perhaps the fact that the observed warming trend (0.1 degrees Celsius per decade) is well below IPCC projections that range up to 0.6 degrees per decade has something to do with it? As current trends clearly falsify the doomsday projections of catastrophic warming derived from the climate models, it is not at all unreasonable to ask what all the fuss is about.

stop the floods, drive an SUV

2011-01-16T11:30:00.001-08:00

The following letter left on the cutting room floor at the Sydney Morning Herald:

Dear Editor,

Penny Sackett blames the current floods on global warming (Nature raw in tooth and claw, 15/1). That may be the case, for based on BOM records the Brisbane River experienced a major flood 8 times between 1841 and 1900, and only 2 major floods in the 111 years since, including the current one. It seems one of the consequences of global warming is actually a reduction in the frequency of major flood events! A return to a natural cycle of 8 major floods per century would be devastating, so in order to further reduce flood frequency perhaps the Australian Government could provide every Australian with a gas guzzling SUV and hydrocarbon credits and commission a few more coal fired power plants. As Penny Sackett says "We owe that to those who are feeling the effects of nature's force this summer."

Mug Punt

2010-12-08T11:50:00.000-08:00

The following letter left on the cutting room floor at the Sydney Morning Herald:

Dear Editor,

Like a mug punter Barry Jones wants us to take a huge gamble on climate change “action” without having read the form or seen the horses in the mounting yard (Doing nothing on climate is a fool's wager, 8/12). Barry says human suffering will be averted if we take action, but a link between climate disasters and CO₂ has failed to emerge^{^[1]}. He claims little will be lost if the “problem” abates for other reasons, failing to see how those wasted billions could have been more wisely spent. He mistakes prudent “inaction” for stupidity at a time when the worst case scenario is but a chimera in the digital fantasy of falsified climate models^{^[2]}. Lastly, he suggests that if there is no disaster it will be through luck, rather than astute judgement to side-step the mistaken missives of a politicized science.

At this stage a wait and see approach on climate still makes more sense than Barry’s bet on a well flogged horse on its way to the knackery.

[1] Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthel, Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: A global analysis, Global Environmental Change, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 18 November 2010, ISSN 0959-3780, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004.

2 A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’,Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 – 1110

Butterfly emergence study- a case of Cargo Cult Science?

2010-06-15T15:37:00.000-07:00

A recent journal article titled "Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming" published online by Biology Letters claimed to have linked a change in butterfly emergence with temperature changes caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions. A comment on the article now posted by Biology Letters (HERE) shows the methodology and results are unfounded, the study could not be repeated. We wonder if the media will spend as much energy reporting on this damaging critique as it spent enthusiastically promoting the findings of the original paper.

In his famous Caltech speech "Cargo Cult Science" the late Richard Fynman stated:

"We've learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science."

With the truth buried deeply in the servers of Biology Letters it appears the butterfly emergence study joins others that have all the hallmarks of the Cargo Cult that Feynman so eloquently described.

Ignore the evidence at our peril

2010-05-10T02:04:00.000-07:00

Unpublished letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, sent 10 May 2010.

If Penny Wong, Kurt Lambeck and David Karoly want evidence (Climate scientists cross with Abbott for taking Christ's name in vain, 10/5) to suggest it was hotter 2000 years ago, they can find just one example, of many, in a recent article titled "Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet" published in Nature in 2009. The article by Bo Vinther of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and colleagues uses oxygen Isotope data to reconstruct temperatures over Greenland through the Holocene. Not only does the Vinther data confirm the presence of the rather "toasty" Holocene Climate Optimum, it also reveals numerous warm pulses when temperatures were also higher than present. These include the Minoan Warm Period (1450–1300 BC), the Roman Warm Period (250–0 BC), discussed with students by Tony Abbott, and the Medieval Warm Period (800–1100AD) that the IPCC attempted to whitewash from history with its infamous hockey stick graph.

In developing policy to deal with future climate change Penny Wong should note that the long term temperature trend in the Vinther data is downwards.

Do they have any journos there?

2010-02-17T18:16:00.000-08:00

Unpublished letter to the Sydney Morning Herald

British climategate scientist Dr Phil Jones has revealed in an interview with the BBC that the world has not warmed since 1995; debate over Medieval Warm Period is not settled; the rates of warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were statistically identical meaning the current rate of warming is not unprecedented; and the world has been cooling since January 2002 at a rate of -0.12C per decade. Will this make it past the SMH's climate alarmist news filters, or will SMH readers be forced to turn to Rupert Murdoch to find out about it? God knows hell will freeze over before our Auntie says anything.

Losing his religion

2010-02-12T14:10:00.000-08:00

Unpublished letter to Editor of The Australian

Dear Editor,

The Prime Minister should be congratulated for his grand plan to create a "scientifically engaged" Australia by "catapulting science into classrooms, boardrooms and lounge rooms" (It's the science country, 9/2). But why stop there? How about catapulting the same critical thinking into the churches, mosques, synagogues and temples? What's he scared of...losing his religion?

Comment: A government supporting critical thinking...now that would be something!

So the PM wants un-sceptical scientists?

2010-02-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

Unpublished letter to The Australian, sent 9/2/2010

Dear Editor,

It's great to see that the Rudd Government has outlined a grand plan to create a "scientifically engaged" Australia that will be "catapulting science into classrooms, boardrooms and lounge rooms" (It's the science country, 9/2). But given the Prime Minister's denouncement of scepticism, so critical to good science, in his speech to the Lowy Institute last year, (Rudd dares Turnbull on ETS, 7/11/2009) one wonders exactly what type of science will be catapulted?

"Buy Time"

2010-02-04T16:03:00.000-08:00

Occasionally amidst the chaotic hyperbole of the climate change debate a lone voice of reason can be heard above the din. Yesterday it came from former ALP minister Gary Johns who condensed the politician's job in the face of scientific uncertainty on climate change to two simple words: "buy time" (Don't count your trees, forests aren't that green, The Australian 4/2).

In contrast our current Government and the Opposition leap blindly over the barricades, chasing phantoms yet to crystallise from the miasma. When these demons finally coalesce, sometime in the distant future, one only hopes that our leaders pre-emptively left home with the right tools for the job, and not with a bag full of uncircumscribed programmatic specificity.

IPCC research model promotes mediocrity

2010-01-26T14:09:00.001-08:00

Unpublished letter to the Sydney Morning Herald

Dear Editor,
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has failed dismally in providing conclusive scientific evidence that humans are having a dangerous impact on the climate. After more than 20 years of research and 10s of billions dollars spent, the best reason the IPCC can offer to justify radical reductions in CO2 emissions remains the nonscientific axiom: the Precautionary Principal. Revelations contained in climate-gate, glacier-gate (Storm brews over glacial blunder, SMH 25/1), and with more errors and misjudgments in the IPCC's latest assessment report likely to follow, indicate the IPCC research model is prone to mistakes, subject to confirmation bias and is too open to political influence.

It's time for world governments' to consider other scientific research models that yield more definitive answers required by policy makers. History has shown that a competitive, rather than consensual, approach to undertaking research is more likely to bring better results, faster. The Space Race in the 1960s and the recent success of the Human Genome project are both testament to the benefits of intensely competitive research environments that fast tracked major scientific and technological breakthroughs. If the world wants to understand the climate system then we need a "Climate Race" not the inefficient, mediocre, committee driven methods that characterise the IPCC.

All is not wasted however as the IPCC consensus model will provide a useful case study for future investigators looking at how science should not be done.

Similar sentiments published here:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/ipcc_climate_research_model_shown_to_be_faulty

Lachlan River Valley - things have been worse.

2009-12-17T15:13:00.000-08:00

The Sydney Morning Herald recently ran a series of articles on the perilous state of the Lachlan River Valley in central western NSW (Water crisis in west as Lachlan River runs dry, SMH 24/10; Rivers, dams fail Lachlan Valley towns, SMH 26/11 and Everything’s dried up and communities beginning to crack, SMH, 28/11).

While not stated, the implication seemed to be that the current state of the river was unprecedented. Having worked in the area, mapping the geology in 2001 I was slightly suspicious of these headlines and decided to put them to the test.

This has been made much easier thanks to the work of the National Library in Canberra. A search of the National Library’s Australian Newspapers online database, that contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers dating back into the early 1800s, found numerous mentions of past droughts including the intriguing letter to the editor of The Sydney Herald (the for-runner to the Sydney Morning Herald), re-printed below, that suggests things were much more perilous in past times. Indications that Lake Cargelligo actually dried out, prior to extensive land clearing and with CO2 levels much less than they are now, suggests that the role of natural weather cycles has been overlooked as an important factor in controlling water flows down the Lachlan.

While our political leaders are running around in circles searching for a political solution to the so called climate crisis in Copenhagen this voice from Australia’s colonial era serves as a timely reminder that when it comes to the weather, it goes around in circles as well, just a little more slowly.

The Sydney Herald Wednesday 17 April, 1839
Original Correspondence
To the Editor of the Sydney Herald.
SIR,─Having heard a great deal of the fertile banks of the Lachlan River, I left Sydney in the beginning of February, passing through the districts of Argyle and King, to the Narraway River.
The road from Sydney was exceedingly dusty; the water mid feed scarce on the road ; so much so, that parties, to prevent their horse-team from starving, ripped open their straw beds and gave the straw to the horses. In the neighbourhood of Bunowbunow, (the lands of Messrs. Macarthur and McAlister) and from there to Wheeo, the property of Mr. Shepherd, where tolerable good old grass is to be met with, water is very scarce, and many cattle died in water-holes.
Down the Narraway River the water is scarce; the holes dangerous for cattle, the grass scarce, and on passing the Borrower no water to give the horses, nor grass to be found. Came to the Lachlan, below a junction of the Burrower─ no water or grass, the head of the river being sandy and level.
The cattle on the estates of Messrs. Wentworth, Fulton, Redfern, Rankin, and many others, on the upper parts of the Lachlan, are actually starving for want of water and grass. For many miles together the country wears the same dreary appearance; little grass, and less water. For 80 miles down, after which the River becomes narrow and deep, with here and there a deep water- hole; the grass begins to improve, and the, cattle obtain better pasture. The country on the bank of the River for 100 miles down, improves in appearance; large Plains, with a few trees dispersed on different parts; the water still scarce but the feed good. Cattle stations are fixed on the bank of the River, from one to seven miles apart, as water-holes may suit. It is a rule that the River shall be the boundary, and it is common for stations to be placed opposite each other. The whole of the country for l8 miles down the River, was taken up by Bathurst gentry ; latterly Mr. Cartwright, from Bland Plains, went below all with cattle; since which Mr. Shepherd has gone below him; and more than likely there are others below him by this time, as numbers of herds were on their way down the River ─ parties finding it impossible to support their stock on their old runs. The country on the Lachlan is not capable of supporting many cattle, the Plains being thinly grassed, and there being but little forest land, as also very little water.
At present the country is perfectly dry and sound, but should there come heavy rains most of it will be under water. Major Mitchell's track is plain, he kept near the bank of the River as far as I saw; the Lake (as called Cagillowgo), is dry, and nothing but a morass, great quantities of salt rush and a scrub, that is to be found near the salt water, grows on the Plains. The Stockmen and others are in a miserable condition; no sugar, no tea, very little bread, and less meat, the time for supplies being up, and proprietors of stock not having sent their half-yearly supplies. Great talk was about the Blacks. I was pleasingly surprised to find them harmless, peaceable, industrious, and a working people; great numbers are to be seen on the River; at the stations it is common to have one or two men tailing or shepherding a herd of cattle, the women grind, bring water, and do odd work. A bad system is allowed on the Lachlan, as well as in many parts of the Colony, that is, proprietors paying their free men in stock, and allowing them to run with their herd; that system has been a great cause of so much cattle-stealing. A Stockman seeing a good unbranded calf in the bush takes it home and puts his own brand on, being in so distant a part: he can do it with impunity as the proprietor so seldom sees his cattle. A case somewhat relevant occurred the other day, Mr. McKensey has had a free man, a stock-keeper who had cattle. When his master went to inspect his own cattle, he saw a calf with the Stockman's brand on sucking one of his own cows. The man was taken into custody, but on his way to Bathurst made his escape. It is high time that masters do away with the system of paying men in cattle, or allowing them to have cattle. They would find they would gain by giving more wages, (if such be required) rather than pay in stock. The country generally, in the neighbourhood of the Lachlan, is suffering much from the drought, the trees of the forest are withered, and great numbers are dying along acres together for want of moisture. Cattle are to be seen in almost every water-hole, and what is worse the traveller suffers greatly from a similar cause. One of Doctor Ramsay's men, passing in company with a team from one station across the country to the Lachlan, left the dray in search of water, and has not been heard of since. Strict search was made for the unfortunate man, but no remains could be found of him; he was a stranger, and it is supposed that he missed the dray, and perished for want of water.
A TRAVELLER.
April 5, 1839.

References
Original Article available from:
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12857693

SMH story: Rivers, Dams Fail Lachlan River towns 26/11/2009 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rivers-dams-fail-lachlan-valley-towns-20091125-jrwn.html

SMH Story: Water crisis in west as Lachlan River runs dry, 24/10/2009
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/water-crisis-in-west-as-lachlan-river-runs-dry-20091023-hdce.html

SMH Story: Everything’s dried up and communities beginning to crack, SMH, 28/11
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/everythings-dried-up-and-communities-begin-to-crack-20091127-jwww.html

National Library Online Database
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home

Only certainty about the climate is that it will change.

2009-06-24T03:30:00.000-07:00

Unpublished letter sent to the sydney Morning Herald 17/06

Matthew England (How noisy naysayers led Fielding on a false path, 17/6 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-noisy-naysayers-led-fielding-on-to-false-path-20090616-cghf.html) takes great pains to explain one of the great contradictions of the theory of anthropogenic global warming: that global temperature has flat lined over the last decade despite constantly rising green house gas emissions. England rightly puts this down to natural variability in the climate system. He points to the warming trend revealed by surface temperature data over the last 150 years as evidence that the warming will continue and even accelerate. What he fails to to mention is that this temperature record is but a snap shot of global temperature that has varied more markedly over much longer time scales both up and down. For instance over the last 1000 years the earth has moved from relative warmth during the Medieval Warm Period to the relative cold of the Little Ice Age, intriguingly under virtually constant greenhouse gas concentrations. Modern temperature records begin during the later natural low point and it is little wonder that temperatures have risen since then as the earth has naturally warmed again. Likewise that we have seen a cluster of warmer years over the last decade is no mystery and merely reflects the fact that we started recording temperature accurately when the climate was much cooler.

One wonders if medieval weathermen were as concerned about climate change as we are or did they recognise the warming as a portent of better times to come that would eventually see the Vikings settle in Greenland, bring bumper crops to Europe and wine making to northern England?

Matthew England is right about one thing; change in the climate system will affect us all. However as there is little we can do about it we are better to spend our limited resources adapting to both positive and negative changes as they arise, rather than sit on our thrones by the sea shore and command the climate to stop. The only certainty about the climate is that it will change.

Sue climate scientists instead

2009-04-30T23:56:00.000-07:00

Letter sent to Sydney Morning Herald 1 May 2009.

Dear Editor,
Prof David Karoly argues that coal companies could be exposed to legal action if the climate catastrophe predicted by IPCC computer models eventuates (Dear Coal plants, you’re doomed, 1/5). Spending our precious time, money and human resources tackling a natural climate cycle that ultimately we have no control over, sucks resources from other worthwhile projects such as research for cures for cancer, malaria and flu, reducing habitat destruction, deforestation and improving the standard of living in third world countries, etc. Will Prof Karoly be the one to explain this to the millions that could have been saved if we spend our resources stopping the unstoppable? On the flip side I guess, given the climate continues to ignore the models, those adversely affected could always sue Professor Karoly and other activitist scientists and former politicians who seem to have lost all objectivity on this issue.

IPCC: David Copperfield would be proud of you

2009-04-30T16:53:00.000-07:00

Upnpublished letter to THE AUSTRALIAN 1 May 2009

Dear Editor,
The issue of certainty is central to the IPCC arguments for action on carbon emissions; if there is a lack of certainty then the need for urgent action is diminished. We often here from IPCC scientists that there is 95% certainty in the science of climate modelling. Yet when we look at the Radiative Forcing Components used in computer climate models reported by the IPCC in Assessment Report 4, the error for net anthropogenic forcing is a staggering 112.5%! Treatment of errors is part of the scientific process and it appears to be very poorly addressed and explained in IPCC reports.That the IPCC manages to turn a 112.5% error into 95% certainty is surely one of the greatest scientific tricks made on the public. David Copperfield would be proud of you, Richard Feynman would not.

Prince of Precaution in Space

2009-04-22T14:45:00.000-07:00

Australia's most famous environmentalist, Tim Flannery, has lent his name to a scheme by the world's most infamous self-publicist, Richard Branson, to burn untold tonnes of greenhouse gases so rich people can become space tourists.
See SMH for full story HERE

I'm sure there's a new book in here somewhere...

IPCC process leaves door open to cherry-picking

2009-04-22T14:42:00.000-07:00

From today's Australian newspaper by Marc Hendrickx:

IN his praise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Peter Doherty (Letters, 22/4) ignores the fact that the IPCC process is dominated by a small clique of climate scientists who review their own work for inclusion in IPCC reports. This unusual process apparently overrides the generally accepted practice that peer review be conducted by a qualified, anonymous third party. I don’t imagine this sort of review process would be tolerated in the medical sciences. It hardly comprises an honest approach to science and leaves the door open to manipulation and cherry-picking of research results.
Another Nobel prize-winning scientist, American physicist Richard Feynman, described this sort of practice as “cargo cult science”—one that is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty”. As Feynman said, “The first principle (of science) is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” The time for honesty and healthy self-scepticism from the IPCC is long overdue lest they continue to make fools of us all.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/ipcc_process_leaves_door_open_to_cherry_picking/

The Impish Professor's Cargo Cult

2009-04-16T13:56:00.000-07:00

Coming soon from Little Skeptics Press

The Impish Professor's Cargo Cult
ISBN 978-0-9805943-4-8

Inspired by a Richard Feynman’s essay “Cargo Cult Science”
some extracts...

“In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.”

'But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school -- we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. "
"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. "

"For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision."

"In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."

The IPCC is cargo cult science in action. The IPCC form looks perfect, they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, it looks like science to journalists and is sold as such to the layman, but they're missing something essential, because while the cash certainly is raining in, the observations continue to disagree with the models. It's time the IPCC ended its Cargo Cult mentality!

see http://www.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html for full text of Feynman's essay.

Watch this space...

Prince of Precaution Unleashed Chocfest Challenge

2009-04-08T13:58:00.000-07:00

A special Easter challenge for ABC Unleashed viewers-correctly name the cast of the AGWM 2020 featured in the book and win a free copy of the Prince of Precaution signed by the author. Simply watch the video and lookout for the AGWM2020 ideas forum. The first person to send the names of the 22 attendees to the email address at the end of the video wins a copy of The Prince of Precaution to enjoy with your family. If no one guesses correctly then the entry with the most correct answers will win.

Happy Chocfest everybody!

Prince of Precaution on ABC unleashed

2009-04-05T20:46:00.000-07:00

For a short time you can add your own comments about The Prince of Precaution at the ABC unleashed site here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2532992.htm
How they managed to take a 2Mb video file and turn it into 9 Mb is beyond me! For a quicker download the video is also available on You Tube HERE

Thanks to Kevin Rudd's stimulus package a limited number of professionally printed copies in brilliant colour are available for $17.50 plus postage ($2.50 in Australia-regular). See if you can recognise the attendees of the AGWMonster 2020! Who are the spineless bureaucrats? What's hiding in the bushes? These questions answered and more.

Thanks Kev!

Also available after easter 2009 are newly printed versions of "We're not scared anymore Mr Gore-Special edition". Also $17.50. (Thanks again Mr Rudd!)

Special combo offer - If you order the Prince with Mr Gore postage is free.
Savings are also available for bulk orders (>50)-send queries to littleskepticspress@gmail.com

Payment through PAYPAL ONLY.

Send money through paypal to littleskepticspress@gmail.com. Include mailing instructions and you can expect Mr Gore and/or Prince Tim blubbering at your door in no time.

Note that the cost just covers my expenses. If anyone is inclined to donate or buy the movie rights for many many 1000's of dollars please do!

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore Special Edition

2009-03-29T02:03:00.000-07:00

Given "The Prince of Precaution" looks so good professionally printed I have organised a print run for We're not scared anymore Mr Gore: SPecial Edition. This should be available for purchase in the next few weeks. Those who received the original "home made" versions can expect a new copy!

Printed versions of the original version featuring Ms Green will NO longer be available however the Electronic Edition is still available for download via the ABC Unleashed website HERE.

Science not settled on Ozone

2009-03-26T23:59:00.000-07:00

Letter sent to Sydney Morming Herald this morning...unlikely to see print...

Dear Editor,
Recent studies (DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.118501) indicate that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) have played a previously unrecognised role in contributing to the formation of the Ozone Hole, something overlooked in Ben Cubby's opinion piece (We saved the Ozone Hole, now its time to save the climate, 27/3). Natural variation in GCR intensity linked to the solar cycle helps explain why the ozone layer has been so slow to recover since CFC's were banned in the 1980s. It also explains why we can expect the hole to actually increase in size this year as we enter one of the deepest solar minimums of the modern era. The story of the ozone layer is not that simple and clearly is not over just yet. The effect of GCR's on the rest of earth's atmosphere and climate remains the subject of continued research with initial findings pointing to a link between GCR intensity and global temperature. The lesson to be learnt is that, despite the claims of a few figures of authority, the science is not settled. Rather than turning the lights off for Earth Hour this year and working in the dark it seems some scientists and perhaps some reporters could benefit from working with the lights on for a change.

“The Geologists were right!” conversations with working climate scientist Dr Andy Pitman

2009-03-16T13:55:00.000-07:00

I received a brief reply from Leigh Dayton, science writer at The Australian after sending her the link to The Prince of Precaution. Leigh didn’t seem to like the idea behind the book and promised to get bigger guns involved to "point me in a more productive direction". The resulting conversation with “working climate scientist” Dr Andy Pitman resulted.

To ensure Professor Pitman is not misquoted-the correspondance below from Professor Pitman and myself has not been edited.

We start with THE PITMAN CHALLENGE

...in the end Sir Robin ran away!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:30 PM
To: mhendrickx; Dayton, Leigh
Subject: Warming discussions

Hi Marc,

I am not sure whether you want to genuinely engage on this in a scientific sense with the climate science. If you see Bob Carter as a source of science (or Al Gore, or Bjorn Lomberg) then it is hard to have a scientific discussion. Clearly, one would not decide exactly where to drill for oil based on a movie or an economist - and nor would one use a movie or an economist to resolve or communicate climate science. Similarly, while the 3rd International Geological Congress may be the best source of recent science on geology, it is no more a source on climate science than a IAMAS meeting would be a place to learn about plate tectonics.

So, questions:

1. you say "since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind" what literature ? I am unaware of any published literature that casts doubt (or that has not since been resolved)about global warming.

2. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes.

Lets be specific here.

(a) your statement is not true. Indeed, Chapter 6 of the IPCC report, written by geologists and palaeoclimate scientists use geological evidence (in part) to demonstrate the reality of the science of glboal warming.

(b) which key physical processes **that affect climate on timescales of decades** are missing from climate models ?

(c) what is the evidence that these missing processes - assuming you can name some - would REDUCE the projected warming ? Some you might suggest like abrupt changes in ice sheets, abrupt loss of soil carbon, methane release etc that are missing would hardly reduce the projected warming ...

3. You state" I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood" Well, I fully agree - but the latest science suggests that change is actually in the wrong direction ... that the climate models under-predict the warming.

4. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! So here is the crux. "You consider" that 1oC is not a catastrophe. So, I agree ... but the models are not projecting 1oC ... we have already warmed 0.7oC DESPITE the last 5-6 years being dominated by La Nina. The models are projecting rather more - particularly at regional scales. While this would by no means be a catastrophe in *all* regions, is mist definitely will be in some and would be confronting in others.

If you wish to take a non-global warming stance you are perfectly welcome to do so - but please recognise that the evidence does not support this position. If you can obtain evidence that the climate scientists are wrong that would be fantastic (we WANT to be wrong !!!) but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.

Last point. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting Carter, or other skeptics, for that paper that buries global warming. There is world-wide acclaim, there is that Chair at Cambridge and the thanks of governments the world over. My question is why none of them have published this evidence - but of course the question is rhetorical ... because while every decent climate scientist looks for flaws in the data, the models and the theory we have not been able to find any ...

Professor A.J Pitman: Climate Change Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Marc Hendrickx Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 9:56 PM
To: Andy Pitman Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: RE: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution

Hi Dr Pitman,

Thanks for taking the time to respond, my answers are in italics. Note I have taken the liberty of including Bob Carter in our discussion seeing that his credibility on these matters is seemingly the subject of some doubt from yourself and Leigh.

(Comment-Bob was not involved in preparing the response. I just thought he’d appreciate knowing he was being discussed and what Dr Pitman and Leigh Dayton thought about his credibility).

There are many aspects of this debate that interest me, how about we deal with 2 of these. One relates to the science and the degree of uncertainty and one relates to the policy response. As the IPCC is headed by an economist I take it that you would concede that discussion of a policy response should not be limited solely to those who are currently active in climate science but should also include anyone with sufficient experience from a range of backgrounds to provide constructive and meaningful debate on the issue. Climate science itself is a broad field and comprises more than computer modelers, as you allude to below it actually includes geologists so I would consider that Bob Carter has sufficient expertise and experience to meaningfully comment on the science.

So Answers:

1. Published literature that casts doubt about global warming.

Here are a few articles these are by no means all of them. These are particularly relevant to computer climate models which I see as the major area of climate science that requires further work. (note to Leigh this is required reading-I expect some articles in The Oz on these in the coming weeks-a regular visit to the climate audit website wouldn’t hurt)

D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

Spencer R.W. and Brasell, W.D. Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration. Journal of climate V21, pp5624-5628.

Paltridge,G, Arking, A, Pook, M, 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. DOi 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x

2. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes.

(a)Chapter 6 of the IPCC report includes one of the most contentious findings in climate science, namely the hockey stick graph that effectively flat lined 1000 years of temperature and gave impetus to the IPCC’s notion that current warming is unprecedented. Looking at recorded history, movement of tree lines over time it is clear it is not. Despite well publicised findings that the statistics behind this study (Hockey stick) were deeply flawed this study continues to be promoted. Perhaps as a “working climate scientist” you can explain why this is the case? What are your views of this debate? Do you regard the supporting “independent” studies that are often cited in defence of this paper as being truly independent? They appear to be anything but. How do you regard studies that show much greater climate variability over longer time periods (eg doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.09.039 ) . In regard to palaeoclimate studies there is no disagreement that there have been past climates that were dangerous to modern humans. As a geologist I note historical climate change every time I step onto an outcrop. Whether the current mild warming can be considered dangerous remains a matter of debate and appears to be apparent only in the models. If the predicted catastrophe is not purely a consequence of computer climate models can you explain how the current warming is dangerous without recourse to using them?

(b) which key physical processes: **that affect climate on timescales of decades** are missing from climate models ?

Your contention that climate represents average weather over decades (30 years is common) seems a little short especially given longer term natural cycles are apparent in recent and historical data. (For instance the change from the medieval warm period to the little ice age). Given recent discoveries of natural climate cycles (AMO, PDO, IODO) that operate on decadal timescales haven’t you downplayed the significance of natural variation as a factor in recent temperature rises? How are these dealt with in climate models? Given the recent recognition of long term decadal cycles in the Indian Ocean have you had a chance to update models to take this particular phenomena into account? How many other long term natural cycles have we overlooked? Do they result in net positive or negative forcing? Getting back to your question the paper cited above by Paltridge above provides an example of simplification in models that produces an exaggerated response. Here’s a quote from the abstract: “Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.”

(c) what is the evidence that these missing processes - assuming you can name some - would REDUCE the projected warming ?

See (b).

You make the assumption that there is a “right” direction to climate change. There is simply a direction. It’s up or down! Either way we will need to learn how to live with change by adapting to prevailing conditions as we have successfully done as a species for millennia. Can you please let me know what is the “right” temperature and I’ll adjust my air conditioner.

So the predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of the models? You seem to be contradicting yourself here as the models are main point of contention. The papers cited above indicate problems with the models that indicate that your level of confidence in them is not supported. In light of the three papers above how certain are you that the models are correct? It seems that claiming models as evidence puts you on very thin ice.

While this would by no means be a catastrophe in *all* regions, is mist definitely will be in some and would be confronting in others. If you wish to take a non-global warming stance you are perfectly welcome to do so - but please recognise that the evidence does not support this position.

Computer models and statistically flawed palaeoclimate studies do NOT constitute strong evidence. Certainly not strong enough to support introduction of the proposed ETS at this time.

If you can obtain evidence that the climate scientists are wrong (see above papers for a start) that would be fantastic (we WANT to be wrong !!!) but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.

Be careful here Dr Pitman, your words may come back to haunt you “but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.” As Lomborg has pointed out there actually are consequences to spending our time and money tackling climate change-the money could be spent on other worthwhile projects such as reducing habitat destruction, cures for cancer, malaria etc. Will YOU be the one to explain this to all the millions that could have been saved if we spend our resources differently?

When a blog site such as Climate Audit regularly finds tank sized (holes) in the statistics that hold many climate change papers together its time to give the owner the Nobel prize. Perhaps you could do the honours and nominate him, his name is Steve McIntyre. It is apparent that you are obviously not looking deeply enough!

Cheers

Marc Hendrickx

-----Original Message---------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 10:09 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx

Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: Re: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution

Marc No - I will not debate Bob Carter. It is not worth my time, nor my answers being misquoted. If you wish to take Bob's view of the science there is simply nothing I can do for you. It would be like arguing with the Pope that the bible was written by Allah. It would not matter what arguments I might use, I could not get you to accept hard nosed and rigourous science. I really have better things to do with my time. I had assumed that you were actually seeking genuine evidence. My mistake.

And we will leave this discussion here.

thanks. Andy Pitman

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent Tue 17/03/2009 7:04 AM

Hi Dr Pitman,

Sad that you take the time to ask the questions but don't want to hang around to answer them. What makes you think your answers would be misquoted? Bob's view of the science?

These are my opinions Dr Pitman, you were debating me!

It seems that The Prince of Precaution is not fiction after all! Perhaps it should have been Prince Andy!

Leigh this would make a great story for The Australian! Headline: Working climate scientist fails debate with working geologist.

Before you go I have one more question. You mention a figure of 0.7ºC as warming over the last 10 years or so.

What you fail to include is any indication of an error on that figure. So some simple questions: What is the error?

How much of this is natural? And how much is due to AGW?

The oft cited IPCC warming predictions that range from about 2ºC to about 6.5ºC also repeatedly fail to include an indication of errors. Is it because compounding errors in forcings over a 100 year period makes the end result effectively meaningless?

Why does climate science seem immune from the normal treatment of errors?

It seems it would not matter what arguments I might use, I could not get you to accept hard nosed and rigourous science.

Cheers

Marc Hendrickx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 4:06 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: Re: FW: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

(This sent to Leigh Dayton-see emails below-Prof Pitman chose to reply)

Marc,

MH> From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much > credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an > Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record > includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually > indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for > yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm). >

AP: I would agree on Lomberg. I think many of his arguments have merit but he has misunderstood the scale of the problem I think.

MH> Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or "informed Precaution" should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.

> AP: Strongly disagree. Global warming science is as close to certainty as we are going to have. Seriously - there are few areas of science as certain. >

MH:> Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in "dangerous climate change".

> AP: I am not sure who argues we are on a brink of climate disaster - depends what "brink" means. If it means "next decade" I do not think we are. If you want evidece on the dangers of doubling read the attached. There is, of course lots and lots and lots more ... but this is a nice start.

Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent Tue 17/03/09 8:49 AM
Marc
"What makes you think your answers would be misquoted? Bob's view of the science?"
Experience. And your action of first copying in Bob Carter, then Andrew Bolt. This is not a "debate" this is you attempting to score points and misinform. I am not going to play this game.
Andy Pitman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND SIR ROBIN RAN AWAY...SIR ROBIN RAN AWAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email exchange Hendrickx/Dayton

From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:25 PM

Subject: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Dear Leigh,
The following link might be of interest.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2009/03/prince-of-precaution-goes-to-parliament.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 1:19 PM

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi M:
This interests me largely because it, sadly, confuses the findings from climate change science. I have no disagreement about debating what we do about climate change, but am disappointed with this sort of misinformation.
L

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:05 PM

To: Dayton, Leigh

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi Leigh,
Prior to a trip to Oslo last year to attend and present a paper at the 33rd International Geological Congress I may have agreed with you. However after witnessing the climate change session and the subsequent debate at the conference and speaking with a number of the attendees and since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes. I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! The quicker we start taking policy advice from Bjorn Lomberg and Bob Carter, rather than Lovelock, Hansen and Gore the better.

Thanks for taking the time to look over it. Misinformation? What misinformation? It’s an accurate appraisal of the science of AGW and the potential policy consequences of falling back on the precautionary principal. A copy for every classroom!
Cheers
Marc

PS I have and article in the current issue of environmental geology that might be if interest-to do with asbestos.
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1370-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dayton, Leigh

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:22 PM

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

I’m sorry, M. I disagree profoundly with you. I’ll forward you msg on to working climate change scientists in hope that they have time to point you in a more productive direction.
Meanwhile please bear in mind that Lomborg is an economist and Carter hasn’t published any climate change research, let alone his critiques, in a peer reviewed journal. If he had something that others had missed the journals would be onto it in a nanosecond! They compete for the hottest science.
I do appreciate your correspondence and interest.

L

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi Leigh,
What an interesting response from a journalist.
The third book in this series will focus on responding to climate change. The emphasis being on adapting to change as it occurs rather than endeavouring fix the climate at a certain arbitrary point as some seem to believe is possible and indeed desirable. I have not thought of a name yet. I’ll send you a preview when it’s finished-probably not until much later in the year.
Note that I look forward to any contact from a “working climate change scientist”.

Cheers
Marc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

The second order problem of adaptation to climate change ain’t a new concept, M.
By the way, why do you think Carter and Lomborg are more credible than the numerous scientists world wide who conduct climate change research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

L

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi Leigh,
You seem to have misunderstood and misrepresent Bjorn Lomberg’s position. Have you read his book (Cool it?)- he does not argue with the science as presented in the latest IPCC report, he simply points out that there are better ways to spend our limited resources. Among a range of policy measures he actually advocates increased spending on research into alternative energy sources.
From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm).

Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or “informed Precaution” should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.

Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in “dangerous climate change”.

Cheers
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:40 PM

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Sorry, godda disagree re your assessment of expertise. But let’s leave it there. We do not see eye-to-eye. I see Andy Pitman has already replied to you.
L
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hot off the press!

2009-03-12T20:41:00.000-07:00

Copies of the Prince of Precaution are now available for purchase.

Only $17.50 AUD plus postage (allow $5.00 AUD for standard overseas shipments, $2.50 AUD for local orders).

For other information, bulk orders or other enquiries email littleskepticspress@gmail.com

You can even preview the book HERE before you purchase.

The easiest way to buy is through Paypal (http://www.paypal.com/) to littleskepticspress@gmail.com

Select "send money" from the paypal home page and follow the instructions from there. Don't forget to include a mailing address!

The Prince of Precaution goes to Parliament

2009-03-12T03:51:00.000-07:00

The following letter was sent to every Parliamentarian with an APH email address. Those without may want to consider re-using it, lest they miss out on important news in the future.

Dear Senator,

You will shortly be asked to vote on the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Please take 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to view the attached video. It provides an important lesson in the application of the precautionary principal to environmental policy.

Will you listen to Prince Tim and introduce an ETS along with other regressive taxes and leave Australia in the dark and or will you apply prudence and ask for more evidence?

An ETS will do nothing for the environment and nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

It is up to you!

If you are interested in a colour paperback copy for your self, or your local school or library please contact littleskepticspress@gmail.com

The attached video can be accessed HERE.

The Prince of Precaution: big Tim's little monster

2009-02-24T20:44:00.000-08:00

The much anticipated book by geologist Marc Hendrickx is now in pre-press!
ISBN 978-0-9805943-2-4

Big Tim is the Prince of Precaution. He has seen an Angry Green Warty monster in the cave off Mint Fry Lane. He rushes back to town to warn everyone. After hearing Prince Tim's hair raising description the townsfolk drop everything to help rid the kingdom of the beast. They prepare for the battle through the harsh winter and eventually they are ready. As they approach the cave to confront the beast they realise it's not quite what they expect it to be. It seems that Big Tim has some explaining to do.

To reserve your copy contact Little Skeptics Press on: littleskepticspress@gmail.com
Special preview price $17.50 AUD plus postage

Some sample pages

VIDEO PREVIEW-view the whole book before you buy!

Prudence rather than precaution unfettered by reason should be exercised in determining a policy response to the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. More pressing social and environmental problems are being lost in the haze as we continue to be distracted by carbon dioxide. Its time our children heard another side of the argument.

Land clearing to blame for extreme weather conditions.

2009-02-12T12:54:00.000-08:00

Global warming activists such as Tim Flannery and Clive Hamilton wasted no time this week in blaming the extreme weather conditions that caused a heat wave and helped turn Victoria’s bushfires into a fire storm solely on increased levels of carbon dioxide. However research at the University of Queensland led by Dr Clive McAlpine demonstrates that 150 years of land clearing has also contributed to the warming and drying of eastern Australia leading to increases in temperature and decreasing humidity.

In an Australian first, they applied the CSIRO Mark 3 climate model, satellite data and the DNRW supercomputer, and showed that 150 years of land clearing added significantly to the warming and drying of eastern Australia.

“Our work shows that the 2002-03 El Nino drought in eastern Australia was on average two degrees Centigrade hotter because of vegetation clearing. Based on this research, it would be fair to say that the current drought has been made worse by past clearing of native vegetation. Our findings highlight that it is too simplistic to attribute climate change purely to greenhouse gases. Protection and restoration of Australia's native vegetation needs to be a critical consideration in mitigating climate change.” Dr McAlpine said.

Australian native vegetation holds more moisture, than broadacre crops and improved pastures, and this moisture evaporates and recycles back as rainfall and also helps raise humidity. It also reflects less shortwave solar radiation into space, and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation.

As high pressure systems slowly pass the southern part of the continent over summer, the air they draw down from the north, passing over cleared land, has been getting hotter and dryer and helps explain this summer’s heat wave. It also may help explain why these bushfires were so intense, probably more intense than those of Black Friday in 1939 and Ash Wednesday in 1983.

Models show eastern Australia was between 0.4 and two degrees warmer, and south-west WA was between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees warmer. My interpretation of these model outputs suggests that most of the warming in South East Australia over the last 50 years could be explained by land clearing alone. In my opinion this does not appear to leave much warming that can be attributed to CO2 in Australia and raises questions about sensitivity of CO2 computations used in other climate models.

Reducing the chances of future extreme weather events then does not depend solely on reducing CO2 emissions but also in restoring vegetation to critical parts of New South Wales and Queensland. Ironically while clearing of vegetation in bushfire areas is required to reduce the intensity of wildfires, restoring native vegetation in central New South Wales and southern Queensland is also required to reduce the intensity of weather events that create the conditions for wild fires in the first place.

Use of CO2 as a scapegoat for extreme weather events has blinded us from looking for other influences on regional climate systems, its time we opened our eyes to other factors that are affecting our weather. The simplistic picture painted by Hamilton and Flannery simply isn’t correct, it is a complex problem with no simple answer or solution. Perhaps they are spending too much time jet setting the climate change conference circuit and need to spend more time in th elibrary.

The views in the article are those of the author. While Dr McAlpine was made aware of this article he may not necessarily agree with all of it. The author recommends Dr McAlpine be consulted for more detailed information about the role of land clearing on climate change in Australia.

Sources
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=13308
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Land-clearing-blamed-for-climate-change/2007/10/28/1193555525054.html
McAlpine C. A., J. Syktus, R. C. Deo, P. J. Lawrence, H. A. McGowan, I. G. Watterson, S. R. Phinn (2007), Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia's regional climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22711, doi:10.1029/2007GL031524. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

2008-12-11T19:54:00.000-08:00

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.
U. S. Senate Minority Report released.

To access click HERE

ANGRY GREEN WARTY MONSTER FRIDGE MAGNETS NOW AVAILABLE

2008-12-07T01:35:00.000-08:00

To celebrate the forthcoming release of The Prince of Precaution: Big Tim's Little Monster Angry Green Warty Monster fridge magnets are now available. To order contact The Little Skeptic, or simply print out and stick on the fridge.

ABC rises to the challenge

2008-12-01T20:12:00.000-08:00

Publication of 'We're not scared anymore Mr Gore" on the ABC's Unleashed site should quell rumours that the ABC is taking a biased stand on anthropogenic global warming. Well it has for me at least.

You can now download the PDF direct from the abc via:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2433911.htm

Media Bias

2008-11-28T18:59:00.000-08:00

The Australian Newspaper rightly criticizes the Fairfax press for their treatment of Anthropogenic Global Warming (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722322-16382,00.html).

The basis for this appears to be the view that the science is settled and there is consensus on the issue. This is utterly false. There remains substantial dissent on the issue. The debate held at the conclusion of the climate change session at the 33rd International Geological Congress in Oslo in August this year is a good example. The words of Galileo still ring true: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Despite what some alarmists are saying there remains plenty of time to keep an open mind.

The Prince of Precaution: Big Tim's Little Monster

2008-11-26T20:32:00.000-08:00

Coming soon from Marc Hendrickx.

Big Tim is the Prince of Precaution. He has seen an Angry Green Warty monster in the cave off Mint Fry Lane. He rushes back to town to warn everyone. After hearing Prince Tim's hair raising description the townsfolk drop everything to help rid the kingdom of the beast. They prepare for the battle through the harsh winter and eventually they are ready. As they approach the cave to confront the beast they realise it's not quite what they expect it to be.

It seems that Big Tim has some explaining to do.

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore on YouTube

2008-11-24T11:00:00.000-08:00

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DW9_RkHlz2Q

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore Electronic Edition Free Download

2008-11-21T11:24:00.000-08:00

An electronic (PDF) edition of We're not scared anymore Mr Gore has now been released. Free to download, but donations are certainly welcome!

Just click HERE or right click the link and save target.

Submit to donations through Paypal using email address littleskepticspress@gmail.com

Praise for "We're not scared anymore Mr Gore" "Thats awesome! Love it."

2008-11-19T14:36:00.000-08:00

We received the following review of We're not scared anymore Mr Gore from reader Dana Francis:

"We're not scared anymore Mr Gore is one of the sweetest parody's around. Is it the only one on climate change? Portraying Mr Gore as Death complete with Hockey Stick graph as scythe is a classic. The special edition with Mrs Pailing (aka Sarah Palin) was especially amusing, and most timely. Is that a pump action shotgun she is holding? I'm looking forward to more from geologist author Marc Hendrickx. Definitely worth the $20 bucks. More please!"

From Watts up with That? reader
Paul S: "Thats awesome! Love it."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Why most published research findings are false

2008-11-18T02:47:00.001-08:00

Michael Duffy interviewed Professor John Ioannidis (Professor: Department of Hygiene & Epidemiology University of Ioannina Greece) on ABC Radio National program Counterpoint on Monday. Professor Ioannidis is co-author of a paper titled "Why most published research findings are false". This makes interesting reading and listening for those who still believe that published papers are without flaws.

The paper is available through Pub Med at:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1182327#id350960

And the interview via ABC at:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2420024.htm

Carr's Curse

2008-11-17T11:23:00.000-08:00

Former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett blasts Macquarie Bank employee and former NSW premier Bob Carr in today's Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24667522-601,00.html

Like many former ALP leaders Bob Carr suffers from selective amnesia and attempts to adjust history in his favour. The fact remains that Carr’s obsession with cutting debt, to sate the whims of now discredited financial rating agencies, at the expense of spending on much needed infrastructure improvements in areas of transport, health and education has left much of Sydney looking like east Berlin after the fall of the Berlin wall. It will take many years to undo the damage. Jeff suggests at least five but it will be more like 10 for the necessary infrastructure to be built. We can only hope that a change of government will see an end to his damaging influence on NSW state politics. Amazingly Carr continues to suck at the public teat while in the pay of Macquarie Bank. In prior centuries such behaviour from public officials was rewarded not with a government pension, but with a jail cell on the likes of the island of Elba…or worse. I wonder if there remains room on this little island to house our own man of letters?

Nathan Rees has the golden opportunity to go down in history as the best premier of this lamentable era if only he decides to save us all by falling on his own sword and call an election. Call it now Nathan, lest we storm the barricades.

Debate on Peer review continues

2008-11-16T14:44:00.000-08:00

Letter writers to the Sydney Morning Herald continue to hash out ill informed debate on the peer review system.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/loose-terms-of-inquiry-mean-stewart-has-a-case/2008/11/16/1226770249126.html

As flawed as it is, it remains the best system science has and as Marc Hendrickx pointed out last week: "The best tests of science remain the long-term reproducibility of results and strength of theories against falsification. "

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/being-published-does-not-turn-fiction-into-fact/2008/11/13/1226318831884.html

Does psychology count as serious science?

2008-11-14T15:32:00.000-08:00

Is the ultimate arbitrator of psychology: Morning TV and talkback radio? Is this really a serious science? Your comments appreciated!

"most peer-reviewed published science is useless rubbish"

2008-11-14T11:13:00.000-08:00

It seems that Marc Hendrickx's criticism of the peer review system has struck a cord with at least one of the Sydney Morning Herald's readers. Letter writer Jon Jenkins makes the following point:

From today's Sydney Morning Herald 15/11/2008:

"The system of peer review in science has become corrupted, with rorts such as rampant cross-authoring (putting names of non-contributing colleagues on papers to build their CVs) and "coffee time" agreements to approve each other's works.
Almost all grants, funding, pay, promotions and accolades are as a result of numbers of papers published. A far more useful statistic would be the number of citations, a measure of the work's usefulness.
As stunning as it is that most published papers are found to be false within five years, two other statistics are even more blunt: 50 per cent of publications are never read by anyone, and 95 per cent of peer-reviewed science is never cited, other than by the authors themselves.
In other words, most peer-reviewed published science is useless rubbish. "

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/when-it-comes-to-trains-make-ours-a-double/2008/11/14/1226318921706.html

Hard to agrue with those figures Jon, but were they peer reviewed?

Peer review problems

2008-11-13T11:09:00.000-08:00

As the following letter by Marc Hendrickx in today's Sydney Morning Herald points out, it ain't all plain sailing in the world of academia!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/being-published-does-not-turn-fiction-into-fact/2008/11/13/1226318831884.html

"The peer-review system for publication in science journals is inherently flawed and in desperate need of an overhaul. Emeritus Professor Brian Milton's comments (Letters, November 13) in support of the system reveal a naivety that appears common among senior academics raised at a time when academic performance, pay and position were not so closely tied to publishing papers.
The pressure to churn out papers has put exceptional demand on the peer-review system and resulted in many low-quality papers slipping through - often by watering down or exaggerating conclusions to pander to the whims of editors or high-profile reviewers.
The chances of publication are boosted by adding the names of well-credentialled supervisors or senior academics who typically contribute nothing or very little. This would be considered fraudulent in most other fields of publication.
In my experience, blinding reviewers to the names of authors and vice versa is practised by only a few journals. Reviewers are not paid for their time and there is little recognition of their work. Their opinions are often disregarded by editors keen to fill journals and meet publication deadlines.
The failures of the system were highlighted by the paper by the epidemiologist John Ioannidis, presumably peer-reviewed, cited by Michael Duffy ("Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored", November 8-9). It suggests most published findings are proved false within five years of publication. If the system is as good as Emeritus Professor Milton suggests, how can this rubbish, produced by "pure-minded" academics supported by "independent" government funds, get a tick?
The best tests of science remain the long-term reproducibility of results and strength of theories against falsification. The current theory of dangerous climate change driven by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions has not yet passed those tests. Getting published these days is no guarantee of quality."

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore - SPecial Edition

2008-11-12T02:19:00.000-08:00

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore SPecial Edition now available!

21 colourful pages of hard hitting parody, a steal at $20 USD plus postage.

Contact littleskepticspress@gmail.com to place an order!

Don't miss this great Christmas gift for the little skeptic in your family.

NSW mini budget a farce!

2008-11-11T14:29:00.000-08:00

With the Mini budget a farce it appears New South Wales are set to endure another 2 years of torture at the hands of the NSW ALP as they squander more opportunity and sell off more assets to support a collapsing balance sheet to protect an irrelevant AAA credit rating. We do not ask that much of our leaders but we do require that they have a modicum of competence, integrity and a basic understanding of the role that governments play in making things better for their constituents. NSW ALP simply do not understand these basics and looking back at the scant legacy of former leaders Carr and Iemma it is clear that they never did. The sad thing is that we have yet to hear anything constructive from the opposition who have also had plenty of time to built an alternative vision for the state. Given the wasted landscape painted by the ALP this should be a walk in the park for the Barry O’Farrell and yet all he has to show us after 12 years is a blank canvas. It's about time Barry started painting!

Climate models must be reliable!

2008-11-11T14:24:00.000-08:00

Gavin Schmidt (Sydney Morning Herald Letters, 11/11-http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/climate-doubts-based-on-shortterm-irrelevancies/2008/11/10/1226165474661.html) claims that the inability of climate models to predict the current hiatus in global warming is irrelevant. He is plainly wrong! The fact that climate models have been unable to reliably forecast what is now a decade long period of natural temperature stability does not bide well for their ability to extend these forecasts out to the end of the century. This fact is highly relevant to policy makers who are relying on these models to forecast future changes in climate and the effects of costly mitigation measures. If the models are wrong then what is the basis for the current crisis?

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore

2008-11-11T13:12:00.000-08:00

Ms Green is surprised when Mr Gore comes to teach the class about the dangers of climate change. Mr Gore looks at the evidence and the outcomes of man made global warming. It's scary stuff. He gets a lot of help on the way from Ms Green but in the end It's Mr Gore who learns a thing or two about the climate. How fast can you run Mr Gore?

A climate change spoof by geologist Marc Hendrickx.

For orders please email littleskepticspress@gmail.com

$20 USD per copy plus postage-Paypal only

Aslo We're not scared anymore Mr Gore Special Editon featuring Mrs Pailing

And coming soon:

Big Tim's Little Monster (a fable about the precautionary principle)