• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Uncategorized

A Note from James Inhofe on Lonely Battles

June 17, 2008 By jennifer

“What a difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a massive global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with few GOP members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly oppose it.

“Fast forward to June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly 30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year.

“Republicans were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments. But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death…

Read more here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=27000

Dems Running on Empty, in HumanEvents.com, by Sen. James Inhofe (more by this author)
Posted 06/16/2008 ET

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC: A Note from Vincent Gray

June 15, 2008 By jennifer

The first United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report had a Chapter headed “Validation of Climate Models”. A similar Chapter occurred in the first draft of the Second Report. I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated, the word was inappropriate. The next draft had changed the Title, and the words “Validated” or “Validation” to “Evaluated” or “Evaluation” fifty times. Since then the word “validation” is never used, only “evaluate”.

No IPCC document has even discussed what measures might be required before a computer model of the climate might be “validated”

“Validation” is a term used by computer engineers to describe the process of testing of a computer model before it can be made use of. It has to include a capacity to forecast future behaviour to satisfactory level of accuracy. Since no such procedure has ever been carried out for any climate model they are not only completely unsuitable for future forecasts, but the level of accuracy of any such forecast is unknown. As a result they are unable to place levels of reliability on any of the models, or on any “projection’ resulting from them..

The Glossary to the IPCC 4th Report does not contain a mention of either “validation” or “evaluation’, but it is plain in the text that “evaluation” includes “attribution” which derives a cause/effect relationship from a “correlation” contrary to the demands of basic logic.

From the Glossary on “Detection and Attribution”:

“Detection and attribution Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.”

The use of the term “attribution” evades the firm logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, does not prove cause and effect, not even to any level of “likelihood” or spurious “probability. Their “attribution” process consists in downgrading, distorting and even ignoring alternative reasons for a correlation in order to claim that their explanation had been proved.

The IPCC admit that none of there models have been properly validated, because they refuse to use the word “forecast”, only “projection”. A “projection” is merely the consequence of the initial assumptions and it has no value as a forecast unless it has been tested against future climate behaviour.

This is what the Glossary says:

“Climate prediction A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce an estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, for example, at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. Since the future evolution of the climate system may be highly sensitive to initial conditions, such predictions are usually probabilistic in nature. See also Climate projection; Climate scenario; Predictability.

Climate projection A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.

Predictability The extent to which future states of a system may be predicted based on knowledge of current and past states of the system. Since knowledge of the climate system’s past and current states is generally imperfect, as are the models that utilise this knowledge to produce a climate prediction, and since the climate system is inherently nonlinear and chaotic, predictability of the climate system is inherently limited. Even with arbitrarily accurate models and observations, there may still be limits to the predictability of such a nonlinear system (AMS, 2000)”

These definitions confuse the separate role played by the models and the scenarios. The models merely “project” the rate at which “radiative forcing” increases with increase in greenhouse gases. They cannot be used to “project” what might happen in the future without “scenarios” which are guesses of the future economic development of the world, from which future emissions of greenhouse gases may be deduced. Then, they have to use anothert set of unvalidated models to calculate how much of these emissions might end up in the atmosphere, so the climate models can calculate the radiative forcing, and from that the temperature increase.

The resulting “range” of temperature and other properties for the year 2100 is therefore completely arbitrary; so the actual levels are decided by the demands of the politicians. The “Low” figure could easily be negative, but oh no! it has to be just a bit high. The “HIgh” figure is what the market will bear currently and it has therefore changed over the years. There have been several occasions in my experience of the IPCC when it had to be suddenly raised, doubtless after a call from the politicians. They used such devices as inventing an extra severe scenario (A1F1) or an extra severe model to do this.

The “High figure is the most important as it is the one used by the Al Gores and Nicholas Sterns of this world to scare us into escalating economic disaster

Since none of the curves have a known or calculable level of accuracy the range could be indefinitely extended in both the upwards and downwards directions. The IPCC actually say this; but, of course, only for the upward direction

Here is what the Glossary says about the Scenarios:

“Climate scenario A plausible and often simplified representation of the future climate, based on an internally consistent set of climatological relationships that has been constructed for explicit use in investigating the potential consequences of anthropogenic climate change, often serving as input to impact models. Climate projections often serve as the raw material for constructing climate scenarios, but climate scenarios usually require additional information such as about the observed current climate. A climate change scenario is the difference between a climate scenario and the current climate.”

These scenarios have not been developed by scientists, but by environmental activist economists attached to the IPCC WGIII (Impacts) Committee, and they are generally grossly exaggerated. Even the figures chosen for the beginning (2000) are all wrong; so they are even unable to predict the past.

The scenarios have been roundly criticised by expert economists. without response. They include such outrageous assumptions as:

1. a 12-fold increase in coal consumption,
2. increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1% a year, instead of the current 0.4%,
3. increases in atmospheric methane, instead of the current fall,
4. absurd increases in Gross National Product, and population,

They were foisted on the scientists of the IPCC Committee WGI (Science) without consultation, so that the future can be confidently exaggerated by them.

Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Why are so Many TV Meteorologists and Weathercasters Climate Skeptics?

June 14, 2008 By jennifer

All three staff meteorologists at [American] KLTV, the ABC affiliate broadcasting to the Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville area of Northeast Texas, joined forces last November to deliver an on-air rebuttal of the idea that humans are changing the earth’s climate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, representing the work of hundreds of scientists from 130 countries, had declared eight months earlier that warming of the atmosphere was “unequivocal” and that greenhouse gases from human activities were “very likely” the cause of most of the warming since the mid-20th century.

The three KLTV weathercasters – appearing in a Nov. 8 story by a station news reporter – let it be known, however, that they were unconvinced.

Meteorologist Grant Dade: “Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it is. But is man causing that? No. It’s a simple climate cycle our climate goes through over thousands of years.”

Read more of the story by Bill Dawson at ‘The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media’ by clicking here: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0608_tv.htm

Further in the article there is also comment that:

The disagreements between television weathercasters and climate scientists involve “a jurisdictional war,” and “there’s nobody free of sin in this matter,” Knight said. “I’m seeing a row here, but it’s not a bad row.”

On one side, there seems to be “a disdain in the orthodox scientific research community for those who are not smart enough to get a Ph.D. or do research, and instead go into the fluff of television and just forecast the weather,” he said.

On the other side, “there’s a certain amount of disdain from television meteorologists who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their [climate] models show,” he added.

Knight summed up his own view of climate change this way: “There’s no question that warming is going on. To say it’s a hoax is to deny the data. To say it’s all human-caused is foolish, too.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Philosophy

A Note on Temperature Anomalies by Tom Quirk (Part 2)

June 13, 2008 By Tom Quirk

One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch following either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument… So began Part 1 of ‘A Note on Temperature Anomalies’ in which Tom Quirk looked at the correlation of the five temperature series and concluded that it is surprising to see the agreement achieved by two quite independent approaches.

In response to a question following this post about the real temperature fluctuations on a monthly basis, Tom calculated the the standard deviations from a covariance analysis, Table 3.

“The last two rows are from averaging the ground based results and averaging the satellite results and then making a comparison.

Table 3
tom Quirk table3_temp.JPG

The temperature and common fluctuations on the ground based constructs must be around 0.09 0C for the standard deviation.

GISS has a larger standard deviation so 0.09 0C would be easily accommodated along with the manipulations for the extra total standard deviation.

Finally the satellite data has a different and larger standard deviation to the ground based results. Perhaps the atmosphere is more turbulent than the oceans that must have a soothing effect on temperature fluctuations, as they have the largest heat memory of the components, land, sea and air.

Tom Quirk
Melbourne”

Filed Under: Opinion, Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

What is Wilderness (Part 12)

June 11, 2008 By jennifer

The chief executive of the National Parks Association of New South Wales, Andrew Cox, was reported in today’s The Sydney Morning Herald saying that he would “die in a ditch” protecting national parks from commercialisation by the tourism industry.

Bourke May 05 109 copy .jpg
Back of Bourke, May 2005. Photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy

—————
Other posts in this series:
part 1 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000797.html Percy Bysshe Shelley 1820, Theodore Roosevelt 1903, Donald McKinley 1963, William Tucker 1982, Phil Cheney 2003.
part 2 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003015.html Martin Thomas, 2003.
part 3 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003044.html Travis, May 2008.
part 4 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003104.html John Brinckerhoff Jackson, 1994.
part 5 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003112.html Wes George, 2008.
part 6 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003120.html Cohenite, 2008.
part 7 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003124.html Roy Spencer, 2008.
part 8 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003127.html Libby, 2008
part 9 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003129.html Spangled Drongo, 2008
part 10 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003131.html Walter Starck, 2008
part 11 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003133.html Neil Hewett, 2008

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Wilderness

Misbehaving Models and Missing Mammals by Jennifer Marohasy

June 11, 2008 By jennifer

Following is my review of ‘Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ by Aynsley Kellow (Edward Elgar, 2007, 218 pages) as published in The IPA Review, May 2008 (Vol 59/4):

In 2000 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) claimed a species of Cambodian mountain goat, Pseudonovibos sptraits, was endangered with a fragmented population of 2,500 mature individuals. The species was included in the 2003 and 2006 edition of the IUCN Red List of Threatend Species.

But the Pseudonovibos sptrails never existed.

Cambodian artisans had been fooling collectors for years by removing the sheath from the horns of domestic cattle, soaking them in vinegar, heating them in palm sugar and bamboo leaves before moulding and carving the horns and then selling them as wall mounts. There had been no sightings of the goats, and DNA analysis indicated the skull bones to be those of cattle, but the idea of a rare creature that needed saving captured the imagination of the local Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) program manager and he featured the IUCN listing in his fight against land mines and rainforest destruction.

In a new book Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science Aynsley KeIlow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, uses this and other case studies from conservation biology and climate science as examples of ‘noble cause corruption’. The phenomenon is recognised in law enforcement circles where police officers manufacture evidence to ensure a conviction.

The thesis of Kellow’s book is that noble cause corruption gives as much cause for concern about the reliability of science as the potential influence of money.

Kellow shows that noble cause corruption is rife in the environmental sciences, and he shows how the corruption is facilitated by the virtual nature of much of the science.

After opening with the somewhat comical example of the bogus listing of the mythical Cambodian mountain goat, Kellow gets into the history of conservation biology. He explains how in the early 1980s ecology lacked a scientifically respectable method for studying life. The ecosystem approach potentially provided scientific respectability by supplying ecologists with mathematical tools developed by physicists beginning with the species-area equation and the theory of island biogeography.

While the theory could explain the number of insect and arthropod species colonising mangrove islands off the coast of Florida as a function of their distance from the mainland, the theory’s extrapolation to non-island situations and terrestrial ecology more generally was not justified.

And predicting species loss by extrapolating backwards to suggest, for example, that a reduction in the area of forest will produce the same rate of species reduction as does its growth, has no basis in observational data but is common practice in conservation biology.

It is this approach, in particular the dominance of mathematical models, which makes it possible for groups like Greenpeace to use figures of 50,000-100,000 species becoming extinct every year, with support from the scientific literature, when they would be hard pressed to provide evidence of any actual extinctions.

Furthermore, an ecosystem as Kellow explains is nothing more than a construction: ‘Ecologists tried to study ponds as examples of ecosystems, but soon found even they were not closed systems but connected to the watertable, and affected by groundwater flows, spring run-off and migrating waterfowl.’

In Science and Public Policy, Kellow shows how the misguided approach to the complexity of ‘ecosystems’ facilitated the subsequent development of climate science as ‘post-normal’ science. Kellow begins by explaining that climate change is an area of science where models inevitably play an important role-there is little scope for laboratory experimentation.

Climate models are constructed using historical data and then tested against the same data. Until about 1996 they produced a warming climate even with constant carbon dioxide. It is a vast undertaking and many scientists involved in modelling future climates have to assume the results of others are correct, and so it becomes partly a construct-dealing with enormous complexity and nonlinear processes.

Furthermore, Kellow details how lapses in scientific standards have occurred-involving the misuse of statistics on emissions scenarios and the incorrect reinterpretation of tree-ring data- which have had the effect of conveniently contributing to the political case for action to mitigate climate change.

The second half of the book is very much about politics beginning with a detailed analysis of the campaign by scientists against statistician Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World and following with a critique of why there seems to be a closer affinity between environmentalism and left-leaning parties in western democracies and greater hostility towards environmental protection from right-leaning parties.

Kellow argues that there are cultural factors associated with the appreciation of nature that align with political ideologies and that these factors become exaggerated by the now virtual nature of many scientific disciplines. This further facilitates the corruption of science and public policy.

Kellow disputes the claim that the rise of environmentalism simply reflects increasing affluence and a progressive agenda, and considers the history of environmentalism and the myth of the balance of nature in the context of a long tradition of Western thought often involving catastrophic decline from some idyllic past- usually as a result of sin.

The idea of the ‘balance of nature’ persists, even though it is not supported by the observational data, because, if we accept this myth, any change in ecosystems can be attributed to human activity and imparted with a deep social meaning.

Within this paradigm, ecology involves all manner of projections of human values onto observed nature including through the use of terms such as ‘invasive species’ and ‘alien’.

Quoting Robert Kirkman, Kellow suggests that a belief in ecologism provides a moral compass pointing in the direction of holistic harmony, but it is an illusion.

This shift of environmentalism onto a religious plane, coupled with the descent of much of ecology into the virtual world of mathematical modelling has seen the marriage of environmental science to political activism. Classic liberalism, Kellow explains, with its emphasis on separation between the individual and the state, can provide a protection against ‘the darker possibilities of environmentalism’.

The book ends with a warning to scientists to not usurp the role of policy-makers. But rather provide those policy-makers with informed choices.

Indeed public policy is almost never resolved by some piece of scientific information. When science is used to arbitrate it eventually loses its independent status and disqualifies itself.

Science and Public Policy is an important book as a philosophical and historical analysis of environmental activism particularly over the last 30 years.

It will be especially appreciated by naturalists and biologists who remember the good old days when tramping about in work boots observing wild goats at close range or, in my case, collecting live lepidopteron, was encouraged-that is, before the advent of environmental science and sitting at desks crunching numbers for computer models.

Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

You can buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Plants and Animals

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 35
  • Go to page 36
  • Go to page 37
  • Go to page 38
  • Go to page 39
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 334
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital