• Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • Sceptics and Alarmists, Together, Present to Coalition Environment Committee
Information

Sceptics and Alarmists, Together, Present to Coalition Environment Committee

By jennifer
October 23, 2015
Sceptics and Alarmists, Together, Present to Coalition Environment Committee

ON Tuesday there was a Parliamentary Information Session in Canberra sponsored by the Global Change Institute and the University of Queensland at which many government-funded climate scientists told members and senators that the end is nigh. That is unless Australia signs on to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals at the upcoming COP21 in Paris.

The night before the debate, on Monday, three of the alarmists (Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, John Church and Mark Howden), Bob Carter and I were invited to present information to the Coalition Environment Committee, where Craig Kelly MP facilitated some lively discussion.

It is significant that such a meeting was actually held in Parliament House at which both government-funded alarmists and credentialed independent sceptics were present; this is almost a world first and certainly an Australian first.

I emphasized the importance of distinguishing between real historical data as opposed to naively believing output from computer models that homogenize original measurements. I forcefully criticized both Hoegh-Guldberg and Church for not telling the members and senators that they had presented remodeled data, as opposed to actual measurements in their presentations, which preceded mine.

My presentation* focused on surface temperature data from Rutherglen, and how the Bureau of Meteorology has remodeled the observational temperature series, showing sustained cooling over the 20th Century, to show an apparent dramatic warming trend. This is achieved by the Bureau dropping down past temperatures and promulgating this effect backwards. In particular, the Bureau subtracts 0.57°C from all temperature minima recorded before 1974, subtracts 0.63°C from all minima before 1966, and subtracts 0.49°C from all minima before 1928. The net change back to the beginning of the record in 1912 is thus 1.69°C. This is an extraordinarily significant distortion of the record.

At the meeting, I explained how Rutherglen is one of 104 weather stations used to construct the contrived official temperature trend for Australia, and that every single temperature time series was adjusted. In general, like at Rutherglen, the adjustments have the effect of cooling the past and thus making the present appear relatively hotter.

I mentioned that it was a travesty that Minister Greg Hunt had prevented a proper inquiry into the Bureau last year, and suggested that the senators and members in the room needed to ‘wake-up’ and do something. Public policy, I suggested, needed to be based on real data/real evidence, not contrived temperature series.

After my presentation, Professor Howden began with slides indicating that because of climate change there had been a decline in crop yields. He was interrupted by one of the MPs who asked whether the charts on display represented actual real historical data, or output from a computer model. The Professor acknowledged that he was showing computer output.

At that point, I really wanted to applaud when several of the MPs promptly got up and walked out.

After the presentations there was some discussion of the satellite data at the request of the committee chair, Craig Kelly MP. Luckily, I had a supplementary slide showing the last 17 years of data for Australia to September 2015, that I had downloaded the day before from Ken Stewart’s blog, https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/the-pause-september-update/

Latest UAH satellite data for Australia, via Ken Stewart

Latest UAH satellite data for Australia, via Ken Stewart

This data, which measures radiance in the lower troposphere clearly shows that there has been no global warming for 17 years. However, Professor Howden from the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, claimed that if measurements from different altitudes were combined this data showed global warming. Perhaps he meant that that even this data could be remodeled to show global warming.

Of course, it is possible to change the trend in any time series by making specific adjustments to individual values, then combining measurement in particular ways, with arbitrarily assigned weightings. These are indeed the techniques mainstream climate science apply to data, and then justify the same on the basis it is ‘World’s Best Practice’ because it shows global warming, and any data that does not is just wrong.

Ansley Kellow in his book 'Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science' labels this preference for virtual data that tells the “correct” story, over real measurements, as a form of “noble cause corruption”.

At the meeting on Monday night Professor Carter stressed the need to pay attention to the scientific method, and in particular the importance of testing the null hypothesis. Meanwhile Ove Hoegh-Guldberg continually pointed to a thick tome which apparently represented the consensus of all IPCC scientists. Of course, this consensus is all about politics, not evidence or science.

You might consider sending a note of thanks to one or more the following members and senators for attending. Craig Kelly MP, in particular, should be congratulated for organizing the meeting, and facilitating the discussion.

1. Senator Eric Abetz, Liberal, TAS
2. Dr Peter Hendy MP, Liberal, NSW
3. Senator Zed Seselja, Liberal, ACT
4. Craig Kelly MP, Liberal, NSW
5. Warren Entsch, LNP, QLD
6. Dr Denis Jensen MP, Liberal, WA
7. Bert van Manen MP, LNP, QLD
8. Nola Marino MP, Liberal, WA
9. Andrew Broad, National, VIC
10. Tony Pasin, Liberal, SA
11. Brett Whitely, Liberal, SA
12. Rick Wilson, Liberal, WA
13. George Christensen, LNP, QLD
14. Eric Hutchison, Liberal, TAS
15. Sharman Stone, Liberal, VIC
16. Mark Coulton MP, National, NSW

There is more information, and a link to an interview that I did with Alan Jones, 2GB, at Jo Nova’s blog, http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/alan-jones-talks-climate-paris-mainstream-scientists-caught-out-by-marohasy-in-parliament/

Also, Brett Hogan from the Institute of Public Affairs was the sixth speaker. He gave an interesting talk about coal, and how it is helping the poor in places like India and China out of poverty.

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

* My presentation included several charts of data from Rutherglen, and the nearby location of Beechworth, these charts with explanatory notes can be downloaded here: Notes-EnvironCommittee-October2015-V4

Good Causes

Comments

  1. MK perhaps you'd like us to use bristle cone pine proxies or other data that Mann etc have used upside down to get a fully guaranteed BS result. As Cohers said the ice cores are the most accurate records that we have over a very long period of time.
    Both sides of the debate generally have accepted the ice core data and Mann has been roundly condemned for his HS fraud. Even Prof Muller has condemned Mann for his HS fraud, plus numerous other scientists from the warmist side of the ledger. Alkenone studies seem to agree with the ice cores over long periods of time and have generally won more approval.
    And of course the silly Gergis, Karoly SH HS con only lasted one post at McIntyre's climate audit blog after Jean S and Steve pulled it apart. Karoly emailed Steve to tell him that the study had been withdrawn. What a joke. But don't forget that we are recovering from the coldest period for many thousands of years and therefore the slight recent warming is to be appreciated compared to the worst centuries of the LIA.
    And deaths from extreme events have dropped 97% since the 1920s, the average lifespan has increased by at least 40% since 1900, nutrition and calorie intake has rapidly increased over the last 100 years and Ridley's greening planet video is full of facts backed up by UN and WHO data.

  2. Miker, it certainly was a cursory reading. SDs dovetail with mean reversions which are a long term data evaluation tool. It was entirely appropriate to do a centennial comparison using SDs in a detrended context.

    Your comparison with Melbourne and extrapolating to the world is nonsense. The polar ice cores are the MAIN data from the past. They are the best historical global indicators we have.

    In short, there is NOTHING abnormal about today's climate. And for your further enlightenment about comparisons between the past and the present read McShane and Wyner:

    https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf

  3. Nev, Thanks for leaving the links to the posts.

    Both are hot off the press. Both claim they are reinventing climate science. They both believe they have the truth. One says it’s the sun the other says it is thunderstorms that are the dominant regulators of the climate. Can they be both right?

    It is like a battle between the gods Sol and Thor. Sounds a lot like religious beliefs. We might have a schism like Protestantism and Catholicism or Shia and Sunnis. While despite being variations upon the same theme, they each claim they have ultimate truth and the others are infidels

    I urge both to publish this material in a reputable journal authors (I note the commentators on WUWT are also urging this) and not a journal of last resort as most of these publications seem to end up in, if they ever see the light of day in print .

    If either of their claims are correct then we might as well start from scratch. As they say extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence ( and needless to say extraordinarily strong evidence). My suggestion is Nature , followed By P.N.A.S or the proceedings of the Royal Society.

    As I have said on numerous times I have no particular expertise in climate science but the demolition jobs of David Evans earlier works such as http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/david-evans-notch-filter-theory-of.html?m=1 and http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/questions-to-david-evans-what-do-you-mean-about-partial-derivatives/ and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/22/1308790/-JoNova-s-Big-News-skeptical-climate-model-is-one-giant-circle do not encourage one to expend the effort.

    I think David Evans has spent too much time in the cocoon of his fellow travelers, such as the inmates of the Galileo Society, and has lost the plot.

    Witness this extraordinary contribution of David Evans regarding banksters . If you have the stomach for it, the original 2009 version can be found at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/manufacturing_money_and_warming.pdf . There is however another version of this paper which has been sanitized and published in 2010 with the references to banksters and other conspiracy nonsense removed.

    Andrew Bolt , bless his dear soul, has lambasted the bankster theory peddled by an inmate of the Galileo Society and given it a more appropriate label. See http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/happy_to_help_those_who_ask_but_not_people_who_peddle_this/ .

    This Force X stuff of David Evans also sounds preposterous. However I think it might be up for a Hugo award. It could be a tight battle, as the script for the classic film ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ is also nominated.

  4. Neville,

    Thanks for the correction about the locatioons of the ice cores.I did say it was a cursory reading but It doesn't make an iota of difference to how ridiculous this paper is. Comparing the data from four locations and extrapolating it to the world is still complete nonsense.

    While checking the locations mentioned in Dr lloyd's paper i was struck by the dissimilarity between the graph of the data for Vostok and the graph of the data for Dome C. The Vostok graph being much smoother and lacking the high frequencies of the Dome C graph. This further illustrates how dumb it was for the author not to use spectral data to provide information about the standard deviations at the same frequency.

    Have a pleasant trip, Nev.

  5. MK you're wrong about the ice cores. Both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores were used, so both NH and SH are covered. And I still believe that the maths profs at Concordia are probably correct that OZ's huge contribution is a whopping 0.006 C in the last 215 years. IOW, that's SFA. And check out HAD 4 from 1850.
    BTW Willis has updated his tropical thunderstorm evaporative cooling idea and provides the data to prove his case. Rather buggers up the prevailing narrative.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/11/tropical-evaporative-cooling/

    And Dr David Evans is still edging towards his new accurate climate model.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19-the-invisible-nameless-model-that-controls-the-whole-field-of-climate-science/ Sorry but I'm off on a trip but will try and catch up later if I can.

  6. I did say I wasn't going to comment on a contribution from Mack again but the contrition of Mack made me temporarily suspend my policy.

    Mack.,I wouldn't be apologizing to Jennifer, Nev, cohenite, spangas and the rest of the gang for your megagoofs. I would be highly pissed off, I dont know why they let you go over the top and walk progressively deeper and deeper into the minefield of no man's land, in the first place. I would have expected them to have intervened and provided you with some sage advice and dragged you back to the safety of your foxhole.

    All your so called mates went missing in action. Not exactly the Anzac spirit. The kindest interpretation on their inability to sensibly advise you is that they totally believed the stuff about the phases of the moon etc..or maybe they were simply unsure .A less kind interpretation is that they regarded you simply as cannon fodder.

    Either of the above scenarios is pretty sad.

  7. Nev,the data presented by Philip J Lloyd that you linked to at 10:52 last night is ‘interesting’.

    After a cursory reading of this paper I would like to make the following comments.

    1. The major curiosity of this paper is that Dr Lloyd hasn’t used the trend data for each century which I suggest is more robust and relevant to the current data than calculations of the standard deviation.

    The standard deviation around the trend is more indicative of short term, year to year noise, relatively short trends or oscillations such as ElNino/LaNina and multi-decadal trends such as PDO et. The relative contributions of these should have been measured using spectral analysis i.e. The square root of the power spectrum will tell you how much these terms of varying period contribute to the total standard deviation. If he major contributor is year to year variation then the standard deviation is probably just noise.

    2. The data is for 4 locations at the south pole. To compare this data with more contemporary data sets such as Hadcrut that is derived from thousands of weather stations for is bizarre.

    For example let us compare the data for one location at the moment , say Melbourne. For the past 100 years using the yearly BoM raw data the standard deviation is 0.625. After detrending using a linear fit the standard deviation drops to 0.535. Comparing this to Hadcrut 4 the equivalent standard deviation is 0.253 and the detrended value is 0.147. The local Melbourne figure is 2.5 times larger than for the global figure for the raw data while for the detrended data it is 3.6 times larger.

    This all makes sense, as the averaging process of a dataset of a massive amount of data is going to produce a much lower standard deviation than for a single station. It is like Dr Lloyd has averaged the standard deviation results for Melbourne, Geelong, Bendigo and Sale to make claims about the entire globe.

    If you are silly enough to do the exercise then the results Dr Lloyd produces should be divided by 3.6 but I wouldn’t recommend this. It could be any value from 1 to 1000. Take your pick.

    3.The standard error quoted for each data set seem to be much too low. The standard error is S/root(n) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error . For the 40 decade data GISP-2, in his Table1 for the average standard deviation of 1.27 ,he has a value for the standard error of 0.02. The actual calculation should be 1.27/root(40) which is 0.2. Similar discrepancies are found for the other values of the standard error.

    4. The ice core data is a collection of temperature proxies. It is extremely useful on its own but you would naturally expect the standard deviations for proxy data,due to the indirect nature of this data to be much larger than for in place measurements using thermometry.

    In summary , if I ever had the misfortune to review a paper of this standard I would have filed it immediately in the ‘round file’ and used it as compost . This would be its major use.

    Maybe the reviewers had a bad day or maybe this journal is one of those of last resort which just publishes any old junk. This is often where papers that have been rejected by reputable journals end up.

    Neville, have you read the paper and does your analysis support my conclusions? If not could you please explain why.

    For more details about the author of the paper referred to see- http://tinyurl.com/oqz7k2o .

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *