Tuesday, 1 May 2012

Is the ABC is now completely unbalanced?

By Anthony Cox

It’s been a typical week at the ABC; the much vaunted documentary on ‘climate change’ [AGW], “I can change your mind about..Climate” featured a well stacked audience and panel to eviscerate Minchin and Palmer, the token sceptics. And at the Drum a typical ‘balanced’ set of articles on AGW.
There was the usual dross from serial pontificator, Lewandowsky. Then, the usual pie in the sky gibberish from Dan Cass, an implacable and feckless supporter of ‘renewables’ such as wind and solar and no doubt wave power.
Last but not least, the equally feckless but morally sustained Anna Rose. Rose is as fine an example of cognitive dissonance as you could meet. She has personally benefitted from every aspect of this great society through education and lifestyle but, through her commitment to the lie of renewable energy she is content to oversee the destruction of that society which gave her every opportunity.
Rose was the distaff part of the “I can change your mind" documentary and took part in the dreadful Q&A panel which followed.
Jo Nova has done a critique on how the audience was stacked and used by the sly host, Jones, especially in regard to Professor Matthew England’s egregious lies about the IPCC. It should also be noted that England has benefitted to an enormous extent professionally through Australian Research Council [ARC] grants which total $100s of thousands. England is not an impartial commentator on the subject of AGW and personifies the insidious and oppressive nature of the so-called ‘consensus’ about AGW. People like England, who are in accord with government policy, receive financial and status benefits. This puts them in a position whereby they can agitate and influence public perception about AGW. In this respect England is an activist not a scientist.
However, the most pernicious ring-in used by Jones on the night of the Q&A was Matthew Wright. Wright is a member of the renewable energy activist group Beyond Zero Emissions [BZE]. Like England, Wright has a vested interest in AGW.
Wright’s BZE produced the Stationary Energy Plan [SEP] which asserted that Australia could run on renewable energy, primarily wind and solar, by 2020. It is a disgrace that the ABC still accepts reference to this completely discredited plan. In 2011 Professor Barry Brook and engineers, Peter land and Martin Nicholson revealed what a recipe for disaster the SEP is.
Brook and his team found that for SEP to work, that is, for only wind and solar to supply power, Australia would have to use 50% less power by 2010 standards, which on a per capita basis, based on population growth would mean a nearly 60% reduction by 2020. That is easy; just switch off the power on Sunday night and switch it back on Thursday morning.
Brook also found that the SEP would cosy up to nearly $4.2 trillion.
Yet despite this Wright was given carte blanche by Jones to say the most outrageous things, for instance, using Spain as an exemplar of the virtues of renewable energy. This is the same Spain which now has an unemployment rate of 24.4%, the worst in Europe and which is an economic basket case; all because they invested in wind and solar which don’t work.
There is no balance in these programs or articles; they are put together by zealots who will go to their graves ‘believing’ in AGW.
It is increasingly plain that the ABC is their natural home; at a cost of over $1 billion per annum.

97% of people quoting this figure are wrong.

Image: Wikipedia

84% of statistics are made up.

At least that's what my old mate tells me. So, how about the oft quoted 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

At James Delinpole's recent Sydney address, he was asked about this statistic.

Where did this figure come from?

 It came from a flawed "scientific" study.

The study was by Doran and Zimmerman 2009. It was unscientific in the questions and was unscientific in the way the results were obtained.


 The Questions.

Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3)

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The first question is designed to get a "YES - risen" from any scientist. It does not ask about runaway warming.

The second question broken down:

Do you think human activity is a contributing factor in changing temperatures.

My house - Google Earth
My house is on timbered acreage and is about 6 kilometres, as the crow flies, from a large regional shopping centre.  The temperature in the shopping centre car park is always a few degrees warmer than in my kitchen. This is called the Urban Heat Island effect - an example of human activity causing warming.

From Steve Goddard's Real Science

I ( Steven Goddard)  just did an experiment in Fort Collins, Colorado at 1:30am.  It is a full moon and the air is dead calm. I took a bike ride with a thermometer, which I have permanently affixed to the bike. It turns out that temperatures are 7F cooler in the open space region below, less than 0.2 miles away from the parking lot of a shopping center.
Recently a paper has been published saying covering countryside with clamorous wind farms causes warming. Another example of human activity causing warming.

 Significant? How do you scientifically measure significant?

The Results.

As Lawrence Solomon wrote in the Financial Post:

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

See also The Hockey Shtick -  The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

               Anthony Cox:  - The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

Some statistics quoted from Scientific American by Ian Plimer in his book How to get expelled from school (p41):
  • 81% thought the IPCC is corrupt;
  • 77% do not want to pay to stop catastrophic climate change;
  • 75% climate change caused by solar variations or natural causes;
  • 65% thought we are powerless to stop climate change;
  • 21% thought that climate change was due to human emissions.   

SEE ALSO:   97% is not what you think.
There were nine questions in all but the two primary questions in the survey were these. Question number one: When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Of the 3,146 respondents 90% said risen. Herein lies one of the flaws in the survey. This is a loaded question. During the past 2,000 years the earth has had well documented swings in average temperature. At the beginning of the Roman Empire the earth was as warm or warmer than today. This warm spell is known as the “Roman Warmer Period” and extended from about 250 BC to 450 AD. Rome fell during an era when the temperature was turning colder, known as “The Dark Ages Cold Period” from about 450 AD to 950 AD. This cold spell finally gave way to a more agreeable temperature rebound known as the “Medieval Warm Period” from about 950 AD to1400 AD
SEE ALSO:     97% of Climate Scientists Equals Only 75 Anonymous Persons 
The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW "predictions" has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can't stand up to any form of scrutiny.
First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.
Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those "climate scientists" agreed with the survey's two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Voila, the infamous and widely publicized "97%" of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

H/t  - Last two links - Climate Depot

See also:  

97% of scientists tell us that the poles are melting down at unprecedented rates and will drown us all.



Warming Wind Farms

Previously This Blog has reported to you of wind farms exploding, of wind farms collapsing, of wind farms harming human health and of wind farms killing bats and birds.

Gee, but surely there must be a good side? you ask.

Surely they are preventing the terribly destructive "global warming?"

(For previous TCS blog comment see eg here, here, here and here.)

Well, do wind farms prevent disastrous runaway global warming?

Actually, they assist the warming of the planet.

A new paper published in Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1505
exposes the truth.

The paper: - Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature
The wind industry in the United States has experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years and this fast growth is expected to continue in the future1, 2, 3. While converting wind’s kinetic energy into electricity, wind turbines modify surface–atmosphere exchanges and the transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere4, 5, 6. These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate. Here we present observational evidence for such impacts based on analyses of satellite data for the period of 2003–2011 over a region in west-central Texas, where four of the world’s largest wind farms are located7. Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to nearby non-wind-farm regions. We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms as its spatial pattern and magnitude couples very well with the geographic distribution of wind turbines.
See also HERE.