Why our leading climatologist won’t talk to The Australian any more

John,

You might like to see how we at News Limited are addressing our goal of a 20% reduction in emissions and becoming carbon neutral by having a look at the One Degree website (http://www.1degree.com.au).

In the “what we are doing - at home” section of the website you will see about 95 projects listed in the EEO public report PDF, with 27 projects elaborated on in detail. This of course is just a glimpse of what is happening but it certainly highlights some of our initiatives.

Of course all of us here who make newspapers, magazines or websites have the option to be as involved as we wish. We have established carbon councils in all our business units to help facilitate this. The Carbon Councils drive many of the intiatives and so you are right it does have quite a lot to do with employees!

Regards,

Dr Tony Wilkins
Manager Environment and Climate Change
News Limited

Which part of “We have produced rebuttals of all of these arguments - they have all been addressed” do you not understand?

I think you are mistaking denial of facts for rebuttals Doon.

Ok, banging away at untruths then. There that sounds better .

I think you are mistaking denial of facts for rebuttals Doon.

No, FROG, I think you’re confusing the English language for the curious brand of middle-earth rightservative babble that you attempt to communicate with.

Just because you don’t like (or can’t understand) somebody’s answers doesn’t mean they haven’t actually answered.

Just because you don’t like (or can’t understand) somebody’s answers doesn’t mean they haven’t actually answered.

Doesn’t mean the answer is either relevant or appropriate either Doon.

Perhaps you Doon, you Bob and you Harry should take the time and read this article by Dr. Michael R. Fox if you want to see relevance.

GRAHAM: I wonder how happy Dr Fox would be if a climatologist wrote a piece on nuclear physics?

GRAHAM: I wonder how happy Dr Fox would be if a climatologist wrote a piece on nuclear physics?

I am sure he would not have a problem provided they knew what they were talking about. He also has degrees in chemistry and mathematics Graham and is a member of the International Environmental Institute By the way his article is about the principles in science not the results. Whether you are a chemist, a physicist or a medical scientist or any other scientist the same principles apply. These are the critical paragraphs.

”In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is---if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong.” - Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law”, the MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.

Notice that Feynman points out that if the hypothesis cannot explain real world observations, then the hypothesis is wrong. There are many examples of where the AGW hypothesis cannot explain the real world observations. The hypothesis clearly is wrong since it fail to explain real world observations, and needs to be modified or abandoned. So let’s test the AGW hypothesis, and ask “Is the Hypothesis True?”

Note the hypothesis is wrong not the data. You can’t adjust the data to suit the hypothesis it has to be the other way around.

There you go with that English language problem again, Dr FROG.

“Relevance” does not mean “poor, biased source selectively chosen because it backs up my own personal prejudices”.

“poor, biased source selectively chosen because it backs up my own personal prejudices”.

Please tell me Doon where I said these words or even implied these thoughts. Is this you imagination running wild again.  Setting up your straw man again are you Doon.

Setting up your straw man again are you Doon.

Straw man? I’ve heard of a wicker man, but never straw. That’s just silly. Ask Lord Summerisle.

I’ll also thank you to use my correct nomenclature. It’s THE Doon. Not Doon.

Straw man? I’ve heard of a wicker man, but never straw. That’s just silly. Ask Lord Summerisle.

There you go Doon you can find it in Wiki here

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man,” one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view, yet is easier to refute.

Perhaps you Doon, you Bob and you Harry should take the time and read this article by Dr. Michael R. Fox if you want to see relevance.

Oh man, you just dont give up on the same ol same ol do you? Dr Fox is either going senile or you just have an inate ability to pick debunked science & right wing outlets.

This prize piece of comedy in Dr Fox’s aticle says it all:

“There has been no warming over the past 10 years and a slight cooling for the last 6 or 7 years. In the meantime the CO2 emissions have continued to increase. The hypothesis predicted warming over the last 10 years, while no warming and even cooling has been observed. The AGW hypothesis again is falsified.”

My thigh is hurting from the slapping in laughter.

Then he goes on with LIA & the Suns role & other planets are cooling...oh man, just gold.

Who is Hawaii Reporter or Dr Fox on the world stage?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hawaii_Reporter

“Hawaii Reporter is an online daily newspaper based in Honolulu, Hawaii, described by co-founder, Jay McWilliams as having a focus on government, politics, business and education. [1]

It is known for publishing articles directly from the discredited Talon News.”

Talon News:

“ Talon’s close affiliation with the conservative organization GOPUSA, a right-wing site owned by Texas-based Republican activist Bobby Eberle, and is guilty of plagiarism. “

I mean cmon, seriously Frog, you do have some sort of Right Wingers bible there dont you?

But the last bit you said you somehow dont see the irony of.

“I wonder how happy Dr Fox would be if a climatologist wrote a piece on nuclear physics? “

He is a Nuclear Physicist Frog .Do they spend all day just putting climate science to the test ? Or do they practice & have knowledge in Nuclear Physics?

Does being a scientist of one field automatically give you knowledge & experience in every other discipline?

Everything is discredited except the links you provide to Greenpeace and the far left wing sourcewatch. Your only form of attack is to try and discredit the messenger. You hardly ever challenge the message Bob your modus operandi is to smear. Is that all you have got Bob. A religious belief in AWG and NO Logic, No Debate, NO Science just smear?  That has been a left wing tactic for a very long time Bob but in the past the left has been much better at it than you are now.

FROG replied to FROG
Wed 07 Jan 09 (06:29pm)
I think you are mistaking denial of facts for rebuttals Doon

Errr, yeah..right. Pity the “facts”, oops sorry,typo, “untruths” were proven wrong.

Sarina, are these rhetorical questions or are you genuinely ignorant?

After all if you add 50 more sites in north Australia and only 25 in the southern part a higher average would result. Are stringent conditions relating to these questions followed overseas?

But it gets worse, much worse if you have 15,000 sites world wide in 1970 and by 1990 you lose 10,000 of those many from the coldest parts of the world like Siberia you get a skewed result - now guess which way it got skewed. There you go you guessed it.  This is just one example of a temperature graph compared with the number of sites.  There are many others.

I see Gaz is true to form with his personal attacks again.

Are you really claiming this guy doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather?
Well, you missed something here.
He’s actually the ACTING chief climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorolgy.
Yes, that’s right, you missed a golden opportunity to accuse him of not knowing the difference between weather, climate AND dramatic art.
I bet you’re really kicking yourself now.

What is this trope about research grants being some sort of Faustian pact? Firstly, if the outcomes were predetermined by the donor, there’d be no need to waste money on actual research, the results of which might not align with the donor’s agenda). Secondly, grants are awarded by all sorts of bodies: governments, businesses, NGOs and charitable foundations. Are you suggesting that all of them have signed up to the same secret agenda to silence dissent? Thirdly, how do you suggest the climatologists fund their ice-core drilling, satellite time or computing hardware for modelling? Or have you got facilities to rival the Hadley Centre or GISS in your garage?

“Grahame where did you get your numerous degrees from? How many do you have or are you just a mouthy journo out of your depth ?Lets hear of the qualifications that make you judge and jury across the entire range of earth sciences ,with an unbridled ability to instantly ridicule any disagreeable conclusions from a pletora of experinced real scientists and ...”

Frankly fed up.. That’s the question I asked Andrew Bolt and Hartlog, and quess what? No reply except personal attack and ridicule!?