Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for January 2011

CSIRO Boss: Self-confessed “Scientific Numbskull”

By

I woke up this morning a bit late, turned on the radio, and the first thing I heard was an ABC journalist referring to the new Australian of the Year as a self-confessed “scientific numbskull”.   I left the radio on just long enough to hear Simon McKeon confirm that he is indeed a “scientific numbskull”.  Then I turned the radio off.  

Enough bad news for one day I thought.

According to the Oxford Dictionary a numbskull is a stupid or foolish person.  But we know that Mr McKeon is not generally a foolish person.  He has managed to amass a great deal of wealth and play Australian politics so successfully that the Prime Minister recently nominated him our inspiration.

What I think Mr McKeon means is that he doesn’t know very much about science – that we shouldn’t expect him to be able to answer any hard scientific questions. 

Mr McKeon was recently appointed the head of the CSIRO – Australia’s premier scientific organization.   

Imagine if the head of one of our big banks, said she was a “financial numbskull”?  We wouldn’t tolerate it.  

So why is it OK for CSIRO to have as its head a “scientific numbskull”? 

***********

https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/2011/01/2011-australian-of-the-year-simon-mckeon/

More Rain

By

Residents of my community on the Capricorn Coast in Central Queensland are being warned of two cyclones: Anthony may hit the coast to our north on Monday morning and a second forming near Fiji is scheduled for later in the week. 

The wind has been blowing strongly for two days.  This morning there was a run on food with shelves again emptying at the local supermarket.   This evening the rain is coming off the ocean in waves and with each wave my green frog starts to croak. 

Just to the west of the Capricorn Coast are Queensland’s biggest coal mines already missing deliveries because of the recent flooding which has drenched pits and wrecked railway lines.

David Stockwell and Anthony Cox reply to Lewandowsky and His Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics

By

COGNITIVE science is about the action and process of knowing, that is about intelligence and rational and non-rational intellectual processes. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky is a professor of Psychology specialising in cognitive process. He thinks the cognitive processes of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sceptics is deficient and on the same level as “truthers” and other “conspiracy theorists”.  Furthermore, he is not backward in telling anyone who will listen that sceptics are “damn liars”.

Lewandowsky’s fulminations against sceptics continues a sinister trend in the AGW debate with a number of prominent AGW supporters casting aspersions about the moral legitimacy of scepticism and calling for sceptics to be jailed or prosecuted or at the very least banned as Senator Bob Brown advocates for leading sceptic Andrew Bolt.  However,  Lewandowsky’s diatribes go beyond legal and political action and calls into doubt the sanity of the sceptical position.

This is serious, for merely questioning the ‘science’ of AGW one now faces the opprobrium of having one’s mental ability questioned.

Lewandowsky has been very active, having several articles published at the ABC’s Unleashed. His most recent one is  cunning.  Apparently realising that the old stand-by of arguing from authority is not having any success in converting an increasingly cynical public, Lewandowsky has attempted to directly involve the public in the scientific process of validating the evidence for AGW. This process is described in his latest ABC article:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43020.html

Because Lewandowsky is an award winning statistician and uses statistics in this latest paper another award winning statistician, Dr David Stockwell, thought having his sanity queried was worth the risk of highlighting the egregious statistical errors of Lewandowsky’s article.

While prepared to publish Lewandowsky’s offensive opinion, the ABC refused to publish the following rebuttal: 

[Read more…] about David Stockwell and Anthony Cox reply to Lewandowsky and His Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics

Time to Listen to Stewart Franks?

By

PROFESSOR Stewart Franks, a hydrologist at NSW’s University of Newcastle, warned in a peer-reviewed scientific article published in 2006 that the risk of serious flooding in southern Queensland and NSW increases significantly when a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation corresponds with a La Nina event.  The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, given these same conditions, forecast average rainfall last spring!

Skip to the audio and listen to Stewart Franks by clicking here: 

Steve Austin interviews Stewart Franks

[Read more…] about Time to Listen to Stewart Franks?

2011 Australian of the Year: Carbon Dioxide Caused Wind to Evaporate

By

Today, January 26, is that day of the year when Australia’s have another holiday and are encouraged to get together with their mates for a beer or wine and to feel good about being Australian.  It is also the day when the ruling elite thrust somebody whose values they share upon us and we are forced to suffer comment from that person for the rest of the year – or stop listening to the ABC.   Today it is Simon McKeon.  He is the fellow Julia Gillard has nominated “Australian of the Year’.

McKeon optimizes the values of the new elite.   He is a bourgeoisie-bohemian*: throughout his life he has valued commerce and also worked to save the planet.  McKeon was a merchant banker and he is now a climate change activist – at the highest level.   

McKeon was recently appointed chairman of the CSIRO – officially Australia’s premier scientific organisation and an advocate for the introduction of a carbon price and emissions trading scheme. 

McKeon was also once a sailor and this has given him first hand experience of climate change phenomena.  Speaking to The Age newspaper in 2008 Mr McKeon explained that in the 1980s and 1990s a consistent wind blew from the southwest across Waratah Bay near Wilsons Promontory.   But since at least 2004 that wind has evaporated. This observation helped convince Mr McKeon to begin minimising carbon emissions and become a business community ambassador for Earth Hour and in particular to suggest businesses switch all their lights off for one hour every year.

***************
*read David Brooks’ book Bobos in Paradise

http://www.theage.com.au/news/environment/bank-chiefs-green-passion-helps-businesses-get-wind-of-switchoff/2008/02/24/1203788146632.html

Another Report into Climategate

By

Climategate was the scandal that erupted in the lead-up to Copenhagen resulting from the release of over one thousand emails detailing correspondence between leading climate scientists exposing conspiracy and collusion including how to stack review committees, exaggerate warming trends, and avoid the disclosure of sensitive information. 

Today in the UK, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology released its second report into the scandal:

 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/publications/

According to David Holland, this report is one for which it definitely makes sense to start by reading the ending first.   On page 39, the Committee minutes show that of its eleven members only five met to consider and approve the final report.   Graham Stringer MP proposed that paragraph 98 be rewritten as below, but was in a minority of one against three with the Chairman not voting:

“The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research  Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world.   There are proposals to increase worldwide  taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held.

“The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”

Read more from Mr Holland here:
www.ventalize.org.uk/Climate%20Change/Climategate/HoCSTC/HC444_Comments.pdf

UPDATE  FROM DAVID HOLLAND

Its worth noting that the Committee has published the unsolicited evidence it received after announcing that it planned to interview Russell and Oxburgh.  It is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/444/444vw.pdf
 
I think historians will wonder how climate scientists managed to get away with it for so long.

*************
And in a paper entitled,

ACCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: A CASE STUDY UNDER UK FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION
Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pgs 3-12

John Abbot and I draw on evidence from David Holland to show scientist at both the CRU and the Met Office are part of a culture antagonistic towards disclosure of information and why this has serious implications for both the effective operation of FoI legislation and the openness and transparency of climate change assessments.