- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Well if I were paid $180 thousand bucks a year for giving advice on something I know nothing about, I would consider myself, if not corrupt, then at least fraudulent.
Yes, which corrupts him.
Andrew Bolt (and others) are just spewing nonsense when they deride Tim Flannery for suggesting that many Australian cities would run out of water the effects of Climate Change.
Firstly Tim Flannery was just echoing the CSIRO climate model which, over the long term, predicts a much warmer and overall drier Australia. But even in that model they pointed out there would be weather extremes including floods that would be the result of global warming. The increase in evaporation would result in more extreme weather events.
.
Well if I were paid $180 thousand bucks a year for giving advice on something I know nothing about, I would consider myself, if not corrupt, then at least fraudulent.
This vilification of Tim Flannery is rubbish.
He is an outstanding scientist with over 100 published peer reviewed papers.
When he wrote the Weather Makers he used his scientific skills to examine and interrogate the climate science field and represent its findings in an accessible form. He did a remarkably good job in that book.
Because he became the very effective public face of global warming awareness he has been attacked by mish mash of organizations....
...who do not want to recognise reality.
Tim Flannerys understanding of climate science is elite.
It is the Andrew Bolts who refuse to or can't understand the science behind what is happening to our climate who are fraudulent.
Lindzen's Junk Science
Posted on 8 March 2012 by dana1981
This is a re-post from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate regarding another Lindzen misrepresentation in the seminar discussed in Lindzen's London Illusions. As noted by Skeptical Science reader WheelsOC, the graphic in question used by Lindzen in his London presentation appears to have been created by Howard Hayden and posted on Junk Science. This suggests that the error discussed by Schmidt was actually made by Hayden and then uncritically reproduced by Lindzen (who also did not provide a reference citation for the faulty graphic in his presentation).
Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.
Calliope called Tim Flannery fraudulent with no knowledge of cliamte science. I think that is libelous and in a fairer world wouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged.
Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard of "cliamte" science. I haven't.
Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard of "cliamte" science. I haven't.
I conclude that we do have a problem due to co2 emissions, you do not.
The topic was about Tim Flannery and the amount of money he was being paid to talk about Global warming. You suggested he was fraudulent because he knew nothing about the topic.
Just par for the course - but not true.
I'm afraid, Bas, that Flannery's qualifications on climate science are the same as yours - diddly squat.
For one who purports to read, you sure have trouble with comprehension Plod.
How many times must I detail my views?
You make little sense and perhaps that is your façade.
Your bluster merely takes the discussion into circles and of course it would be a tactic to ensure confusion on the topic.
You do not specifically detail views at all, you target and put others down with little or no substantiation.
One can only conclude that you must surely have a big stake in the oil or coal industry.
View attachment 46355
Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km², the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).
This one suggests something is
And exactly what do you know about either Tim or me to make that observation ?
Crikey sails, I sure hope you're not a chartist.
The graph orr posted shows that observed Arctic sea ice is well below the range calculated by models. Another way to say the same thing is that actual Arctic sea ice decline is much faster than the range calculated by models. Is that what you mean by a failed prediction? That things are much worse than the IPCC reports stated?
The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong.
Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st century, and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms. Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected. Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible. How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?
Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected.
Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible.
How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?