Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

How Long Before AGW is recognised as a Spectacularly Wrong Scientific Theories by the Academies?

By

“ONE of the best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting.” So wrote Eric Berger in a blog post in which he lists, what he considers, the top 10 most spectacularly wrong once widely held scientific theories.clouds

His list included:
The stress theory of ulcers;
Immovable continents;
Phlogiston; and
Miasmatic theory of disease.

I’m wondering how long on average these theories existed before they were falsified and how many sceptical scientists were censured before their eventual overthrow?

Which brings me to the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). While I’m convinced that one day it will be recognised as spectacularly wrong, at this point in history, each year its grip on popular opinion and on the scientific community seems to only strengthen.

I was disappointed to recently reread an article written in 2011 about the Murray River entitled ‘Water under the Bridge’. While its author, Kate Jennings, was sympathetic to my work, until I reread the piece I had forgotten her disparaging comments about my AGW scepticism. She wrote: “Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand.”

****
Update 31st December 2013. Comment from David Boyd.

Hi Jen,

I was disappointed in your interpretation of Kate’s references to you in her 2011 article as “disparaging”. I don’t think they were. She was stating a problem which we “enlightened sceptics” suffered from with our then minority position on the climate change nonsense.

Remember the full quote was-
“Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand. (We could also dismiss anything from the Wentworth Group because it is funded by the World Wildlife Fund, which could bias findings.)”

I think Kate’s comment was “disparaging” of the “commentariat”. How absurd to attempt to undermine somebodies views on one issue, because you disagree with their views on another.

David Boyd

****

Thanks David. Words, and how they are interpreted and how for the one person that interpretation can change.

For those who wish to form their own opinion, Kate’s essay can be read here… http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/october/1317956752/kate-jennings/water-under-bridge. It is also interesting to ponder the second paragraph…

“I insulted the Greens on purpose to get your attention. Green-ish myself. Climate change? Happening. Melting poles, warming oceans. People, do something! But if I’d started by discussing tillage fractures or SER statistics, you would’ve drifted, flipped the page. I also wanted to make a point about insults. If you begin an op-ed piece, as Tim Flannery did in the Age, with “… white Australia’s relationship with the bush has been a kind of rape and pillage”, your subsequent points about biochar as a source of energy or innovations in farming are completely lost on the audience you most want to reach…” The paragraph ends with reference to metaphors having consequences.

Kate is clear that she does believe in climate change including melting poles and warming oceans. Of course.

If an author needs to begin a piece in The Monthly on the Murray River with reference to climate change and explicitly state that she believes in it, what does this tell us about herself and/or her audience? My recent reference to Carl Jung’s writings are perhaps relevant here https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/2013/11/against-collective-integration-carl-jung/ .

Open Thread

By

“So long as the tools a paradigm supplies continue to prove capable of solving the problems it defines, science moves fastest and penetrates most deeply through confident employment of the tools. The reason is clear. As in manufacture so in science – retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it. The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an occasion for the retooling has arrived.” Thomas Kuhn

Costly Climate Model Just a Big Boy’s Toy

By

THE only difference between some men and many boys is the price of their toys. This observation has much relevance to decisions made over recent years at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, BOM.

A toy is a game, a gadget, a gizmo that may have no real practical value. But of course it is fun to play with.

They have a lot of fun at the BOM playing with General Circulation Models. These models, run on supercomputers, are essentially about attempting to forecast future and past climate including cyclones, droughts and ice sheets crashing into the Southern Ocean. The super computers are worth tens of millions of dollars and there are over 130, mostly big boys, playing with them from 9am until 5pm Monday to Friday at the BOM in Melbourne.

It all happens at considerable expense to the Australian taxpayer and I say they do little more than play, because the output from their favorite model generates mostly nonsense at least when it comes to that most important of all climate variable for Australians – rainfall.Screen Shot 2013-12-13 at 1.53.27 PM

The BOM has directed most of its research efforts over recent decades towards modeling climate systems as part of a global effort that began back in the 1950s when a small team of American scientists set out to model the atmosphere as an array of thousands of numbers. [Read more…] about Costly Climate Model Just a Big Boy’s Toy

At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald

By

I’VE been unimpressed with new Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the nature of the Coalition’s election victory. During the recent election then Shadow Minister, now Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, repeatedly stated that “We agree… on the science of climate change, we agree on the targets to reduce emissions and we agree on using markets as the best mechanism.”

There has been no one prepared to publically put the alternative perspective on climate change, to speak up and explain that of course the climate has always changed, but there is no evidence to suggest we currently have a climate catastrophe or that a carbon tax will have any effect on the climate. Until yesterday. While I wouldn’t consider Ian MacDonald’s speech to the Australian Senate particularly well written, it is inspiring in so much as at last we have an Australian politician speaking plainly in parliament about the nonsense that is climate change and the carbon tax… Ian Macdonald

[Read more…] about At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald

Scientists Warn What?

By

Help. Received the following media release from the University of Queensland today. Can’t find “the research” amongst the conclusions, platitudes and dogma…UQ Media 3

Scientists warn: Climate change inaction betrays the young
4 December 2013

Most of the Earth’s remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground to avoid disastrous consequences for today’s young people and for future generations, according to research published today.

The research is co-authored by 18 scientists from around the world, including University of Queensland Global Change Institute Director Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. [Read more…] about Scientists Warn What?

Retraction of GM-Maize Rat Study Findings

By

Dear ABCA Subscribers,

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today announced the retraction of the article Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize by Séralini et al first published online in September 2012.

Shortly after the article was originally published, the journal received many letters to the editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings, the proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud.rat

The study alleged that biotech corn and herbicides caused tumours and organ damage, and led to premature death in laboratory rats.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), in agreement with food safety regulators globally, rejected the conclusions of the study, finding “On the basis of the many scientific deficiencies identified in the study, FSANZ does not accept the conclusions made by the authors and has therefore found no justification to reconsider the safety of NK603 corn.”

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology’s retraction today states:

“The Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”

The journal’s letter to Séralini requesting he withdraw his article can be downloaded here. The responses of a number of Australian and international scientists given when the study was first published can be found here.

ABCA will be disseminating this information in the coming weeks and months to ensure that Australians are informed of the erroneous nature of the conclusions drawn from this study. We would encourage subscribers to do the same.

Jessica Lee
Chair, Public Affairs Working Group
Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia