Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

And the rest of their remarks:

The program in question must comply with the ABC's factual accuracy requirements. These are set out in section 2 of the Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/20110408/EditorialPOL2011.pdf) as follows:

"2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information

These standards are supported by a set of principles. Of relevance to your concerns, the principles state:

"Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to: o the type, subject and nature of the content; o the likely audience expectations of the content; o the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and o the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

While we acknowledge that the figure for resettlement in Australia quoted by the caller was inaccurate, it is unreasonable and impractical for every statement made by a talkback caller to be challenged or corrected by the host. We believe that a reasonable listener would understand that callers are expressing personal convictions and are not to be relied upon for hard information. In this particular case, the caller was not particularly coherent and was unlikely to be seen as fully credible by the reasonable listener.

Given this, we are of the view that the discussion complied with factual accuracy requirements.

Thank you again for taking the time to write. Please be assured that your views on the program's partiality have been noted by Audience and Consumer Affiars and by radio management.

For your reference a copy of the ABC's Code of Practice can be found at: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf. Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (http://www.acma.gov.au).

 

[DB008]

Here is another one off the Ars Technica website.



Berkeley Earth project is back to re-re-confirm Earth is warming

BEST extends the temperature record to the 1700s, but gets the same result.

Despite plenty of indications that the Earth has gotten warmer””like melting glaciers and ecosystems that are shifting toward the poles””there are a number of climate skeptics who simply don't accept the temperature records produced by three different organizations (NASA, NOAA, and the CRU). Many of them pinned their hopes on physicist Richard Muller, who was also not convinced the professionals had gotten it right. But Muller did something about it, forming the Berkeley Earth project, and building a huge database of land temperature records.

Back in October, Muller dropped his findings in a rather unconventional location: an editorial in The Wall Street Journal. Despite the hype, the results were rather bland. He produced a temperature record that was nearly identical to that of the other organizations. But now, Muller is back for round two, and this time he has chosen the New York Times as an outlet for his climate musings.

As before, his team uses a different statistical method of reconstructing temperatures that works well with short records, taken at sites that were shut or moved. NASA, NOAA, and the CRU use methods that require long records, so they have to make adjustments to the data from sites that have shifted or gotten new equipment. This compensates for the fact that these changes will lead to discontinuities in the record. Since Berkeley Earth doesn't need the same length, it can just skip adjustments entirely: any record with a discontinuity is just split there, and treated as two records. The team has now also pushed its analysis back to almost 1750, adding a century to the land temperature records produced elsewhere.

Link to article - http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/berkeley-earth-project-is-back-to-re-re-confirm-earth-is-warming/

 

[Calliope]

I think this covers all the the GW nasties and parasitic hangers-on.

James Delingpole in his blog for Britain's The Daily Telegraph:

THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th-century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it . . . What (Anthony) Watts (of the Watts Up With That? blog) has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island Effect . . . . . . Poor Professor Muller has been telling anyone who'll listen . . . that as a former "sceptic" he has now been forced by weight of evidence to conclude that global warming is definitely man-made and there has been lots of it (a whole 1.5 degrees C -- Wow! that's like almost as much as you'd get if you drove from London to Manchester!!!) since 1750. Tragically as Watts has very reluctantly and by-no-means-experiencing-any-kind-of-Schadenfreude had to point out the data used by Muller to draw these conclusions was unreliable to the point of utter uselessness. So, in the spirit of magnanimity in total crushing victory, I would urge readers of this blog not to crow too much about the devastating blow Watts's findings will have on The Guardian's battalion of environment correspondents, on The New York Times, on NOAA, on Al Gore, on the Prince of Wales, on the Royal Society, on Professor Muller, or on any of the other rent-seekers, grant-grubbers, eco-loons, crony capitalists, junk scientists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats, hideous porcine blobsters, demented squawking parrots, life-free loser trolls, paid CACC-amites and True Believers in the Great Global Warming Religion. That would be plain wrong.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-work-at-the-age/story-fn72xczz-1226438913695

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Here is another one off the Ars Technica website.



Berkeley Earth project is back to re-re-confirm Earth is warming

BEST extends the temperature record to the 1700s, but gets the same result.

Link to article - http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/berkeley-earth-project-is-back-to-re-re-confirm-earth-is-warming/

"Here is another one" - Quite right DannyBoy

Can the AGW alarmists explain which temperature graphs we should all be using - the IPCC temperature graph with the medieval warming period from AR1, or the new and improved version without the medieval warming but with a debunked hockey stick in AR4, or the one above, or one of many from the Basilio collection posted from a 4th rate blog?

Please include disclaimers including: what adjustments have been made and why, the before and after graphs, and do scientists from both sides of the debate support the adjustments and raw data?

I think we're all getting tired of the typical AGW doomsday'ers posting up rubbish, failing to answer basic fundamental questions, scurrying away for a "holiday" and then re-appearing with some other pathetic distraction.

And the impact to temperatures by lowering man's 3% of CO2 emissions v's 97% of natures CO2 by 5% by 2020 or 2100 is......?

 

[wayneL]

Basilio was fond of referring to AGW as "liars" in addition the the repugnant "denier".

As it turns out clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably, it is the alarmists who are the liars, from climategate, fakegate, to the BEST laughing stock and Muller's preposterous lie that he was a skeptic.

I wonder if she will have the integrity to post a retraction and apology? :frown:

DannyBoy

BEST was rejected by peer review

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Did they forget to tell you that?

 

[DB008]

Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.

 

[wayneL]

Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.

Do you not find the peer review rejection interesting?

 

[sails]

Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.

Danny - whether our global temperatures have actually risen a little or the temps have been fiddled, I don't know, but one thing is clear to me and that is our weather is no more extreme in any direction than what we have seen over the last couple of hundred years. Clearly, any man made co2 is not making any changes to our historical weather/climate patterns. This from the Brisbane Courier in 1889:

THE PREDICTED DROUGHT. Australian weather statistics 1782 - 1889.
" In order to throw some additional light on the above question, I will furnish a few condensed Australian weather statistics of the last 107 years, and if anyone can found a positive forecast on them he is welcome to do so ; all that I can see in them is the simple fact that floods and droughts alternate out here with "lucid intervals" of ordinary settled and moderately wet or dry weather.

Captain Cook in 1770 says little about the weather. Dampier in 1690 or thereabouts was equally silent.
Captain Matthew Flinders reports drought and bush fires from 1782 to 1792.
There was a great drought in 1797 for 100 miles round where Melbourne now stands ; 1799 to 1806 were very wet years, and in 1806 the floods culminated by a rise of 101 ft. at Windsor, on the Hawkesbury River.
The crops were destroyed, wheat rose to 80s. a bushel, and a famine prevailed.

The excessive rain kept on till 1810, but 1811 cut it short, and was so dry that water was worth 8d. per bucketful in Sydney.
This drought was sharp but short, and there was plenty of increasing rain for years afterwards, till in 1820 the Hunter River rose 37ft.

Ten years now elapsed without any more floods, and it was so dry from 1826 to 1829 that water at last became worth 4d. a gallon in Sydney. 1830 saw the first flood for ten years.

Ordinary weather followed till 1837, but 1838 and 1839 saw the champion drought of the century. Stock were all but exterminated. The Murrumbidgee is a great river, 150ft. wide, 60ft. deep, and overflows its banks, like the Nile, when the head snows melt, for five miles on each side to a depth of 3ft. This gives a volume of water equal to a river of 1450 ft. wide and 120 ft. deep, and besides this it fills a group of lakes each from seven to eighteen miles in diameter.
Yet this great river dried up so thoroughly in 1839 that the fish died and putrefied at the bottom of it.

I make no comments on what such a drought now would do to Queensland, and I am at present only going for dry facts and bald statistics.
1841 broke up this drought with the champion flood of Queensland; the Bremer River rose 70ft., and the Brisbane bar not being then dredged, there was no quick "get away" for the water, and it filled the lower story of the commissariat stores here, and Ipswich was very short of rations for some days.

Moderate rain carried the colony of Now South Wales (then the only one) on till 1849, when dry weather began and lasted till May, 1851.

The scattered bush fires of Victoria got " boxed" into one mighty whole on 6th February, 1851 (" Black Thursday "), before a southerly hurricane which sent smoke and leaves across Bass Straits.

1852 brought a flood that swept Gundagai away and drowned the inhabitants ; 1853 saw great overflows of the Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, and Darling rivers, but not from local rain ; 1854 was dry; 1855 and 1856, ordinary weather; 1857 was a flood year, with three months ceaseless rain from February to May.
Settled weather lasted till 1863, which, with 1864, both gave heavy flood. The weather settled again till 1873 (bar a small drought up North in 1866), which, with 1875, was very wet, and gave a flood each.

Settled weather again carne, with a small local flood in 1879-80 ; 1882 very wet: 1883 to 1886 very dry; 1887 very wet; 1888 very dry; 1889 moderately wet.

Here we have 107 years of statistics, and who can discern from them the rule that guides the weather ? A matter which enters so largely into our health and comfort, happiness and prosperity, that I hope to be excused for thus dwelling upon it. ......
N. Bartley The Brisbane Courier 1889 "​

http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html

 

[Calliope]

Basilio was fond of referring to AGW as "liars" in addition the the repugnant "denier".

As it turns out clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably, it is the alarmists who are the liars, from climategate, fakegate, to the BEST laughing stock and Muller's preposterous lie that he was a skeptic.

I wonder if she will have the integrity to post a retraction and apology? :frown:

Not until hell freezes over.

Scientists are no longer "persuaded" by evidence but "converted", turning away from the dark forces of scepticism towards the eternal light of truth. Academic papers read like evangelical tracts, threatening sorrow and damnation. Those who fail to repent the sin of carbon gluttony are condemned to wail and gnash their teeth, as the flood waters rise around them. Woe betide anyone who questions the climate change priesthood, for as Clive Hamilton warned us earlier this year, "It's heretical to reject the overwhelming consensus among those qualified to judge". We hesitate to mention the Spanish Inquisition, but didn't Galileo face that charge at his trial in 1633?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-they-who-repent/story-e6frg71x-1226439798459

 

[sails]

Found on Bolt's Blog - and warmists wonder why the world is not swallowing their pathetic attempts to make us believe their lies - such as this one blaming melted lights on global warming when it was due to a fire:








And here is the real cause of the melted lights:



Read more: If warmists believed this, they’ll believe anything

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Found on Bolt's Blog - and warmists wonder why the world is not swallowing their pathetic attempts to make us believe their lies - such as this one blaming melted lights on global warming when it was due to a fire:


View attachment 48375

View attachment 48376

View attachment 48378

And here is the real cause of the melted lights:

View attachment 48377

Read more: If warmists believed this, they’ll believe anything

Dang! You beat me to it.

Just saw it on Bolt's blog and figured this is the same exact nonsense we've seen here in this thread by alarmists pushing the warming headlines of a false warming.

Still seems to be no takers on helping to determine the impact on temperatures by lowering man's "killer" CO2 contributions, even posted a link with links to the IPCC methodology. Surely Basilio's elitists scientist have an answer that's been peer reviewed? Perhaps it's easier to say - all this useless fuss has been over nothing, but for only the gullible to believe. So, who needs to pay back all those billions wasted, hmmm....

 

[noco]

My oh My, how the scientific alarmist manipulated the concenses of Global Warming by declaring a majority of scientists agreed.

It is an absolute farce!


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_we_won/

 

[Knobby22]

One of the most quoted climate skeptics is scientist Richard Muller. He has changed his mind and now says global warming is real!!

Excellent article of why he changed his mind is published in the Wall Street Journal. Definitely worth a read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

 

[Julia]

One of the most quoted climate skeptics is scientist Richard Muller. He has changed his mind and now says global warming is real!!

Excellent article of why he changed his mind is published in the Wall Street Journal. Definitely worth a read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

Haven't you been reading the whole thread? Muller was never a genuine sceptic.
Start by reading Wayne's post above No. 3685.

 

[Knobby22]

Sorry been away in Phuket.

He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.

So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".

 

[Knobby22]

Conservapedia - love this site - quote Richard Millar as a skeptic-

"To be fair, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing,[13] and, in 2011, a study conducted by global warming skeptic Richard A. Muller, largely funded by the oil industry,[14] confirmed the results of the scientists involved in climate gate, concluding that "Global warming is real."[15] However, the study makes the baseless conclusion that just because the Earth is warming, humans are causing it ('anthropogenic global warming' versus 'global warming'), falling victim to the old liberal 'bait and switch' technique.[16] "

http://conservapedia.com/Climategate

 

[wayneL]

Sorry been away in Phuket.

He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.

So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".

Knobby, please.

1/ Muller has demonstrably never been a skeptic.

2/ BEST has not passed peer review.

3/ Muller has been disowned by his own alarmist community.

It's propaganda and amateurish propaganda at that. Anybody even half awake has recognised Muller and BEST as outright dross.

Meanwhile, the Watt's et al study has buried the BEST nonsense under an avalanche of reality, and the likes of Steven Goddard have shown how the warmist's temperature record has been exaggerated. Also there has been a host of other interesting studies.

Any truly unbiased scientific minds will be tending towards the moderate view.

BTW, what have you done to ameliorate your carbon output due to international travel?

 

[wayneL]

Conservapedia - love this site - quote Richard Millar as a skeptic-

"To be fair, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing,[13] and, in 2011, a study conducted by global warming skeptic Richard A. Muller, largely funded by the oil industry,[14] confirmed the results of the scientists involved in climate gate, concluding that "Global warming is real."[15] However, the study makes the baseless conclusion that just because the Earth is warming, humans are causing it ('anthropogenic global warming' versus 'global warming'), falling victim to the old liberal 'bait and switch' technique.[16] "

http://conservapedia.com/Climategate

We all know conservapedia is as egregiously biased as the left wing versions thereof.

Best to just ignore them.

 

[Knobby22]

BTW, what have you done to ameliorate your carbon output due to international travel?

Farted as we took off to help lift.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Sorry been away in Phuket.

He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.

So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".

Joining Basilio at the bottom with zero cred? At least you're keeping up with the model that demonstrates how alarmists here operate...

I think we're all getting tired of the typical AGW doomsday'ers posting up rubbish, failing to answer basic fundamental questions, scurrying away for a "holiday" and then re-appearing with some other pathetic distraction.