Monday, 16 February 2015

Australian ABC Researcher fails Research UPDATED

ABC Researcher Wendy Carlisle has been making faulty statements and lies on a Facebook thread.

Australian Climate Sceptics have exposed MS Carlisle's faulty research before:

In a Guest Post by Elizebeth Flowers, we reported several of her statements: "Ms Carlisle went to considerable pains to seek to denigrate Fred Singer" and "Ms Carlisle erroneously criticised Lord Monckton’s claims re the IPCC’s sea level rise projections."

Elizebeth closed her post with: (LINK)
Are we not right to assume that such derogatory inaccuracies should not be permitted in ABC reporting and that Ms Carlisle should be compelled to publicly retract her statements or be censured? Or does Wendy Carlisle epitomise ABC bias!?
Unfortunately, Elizebeth, yes, she does epitomise ABC bias.

Malcolm Roberts also wrote: (LINK)
The work of journalists such as Wendy Carlisle has, in my view, enabled the spread of bogus science to the detriment of Australia. Tax payers fund her yet she's abetting the fleecing of taxpayers via and unjust and unfounded tax driven by a political agenda. 

Seems like Wendy didn't learn from her former inaccuracies. She continues on her erroneous way.

Some of Ms Carlisle's new inaccuracies today:

  • 97 per cent of scientist who study the climate. ie the experts. this number comes from a tally of published papers in scientific journals dealing with climate science
  • Friends of Science is a front for the fossil fuel lobby
  • Bob Carter has not published on the question of climate science probably forever
  • I just rely on what the overwhelming majority of scientists specialising in climate say.
  • Heartland Institute is a franchise of the fossil fuel lobby
  • Like I'm sorry but I wouldn't be taking a scientific opinion from someone who didn't have the expertise. etc

97 per cent of scientist who study the climate

This 97% figure has been exposed many times. Can you imagine a study based on these dubious questions:
  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? 

Of course temperature have risen since pre-1880s. The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870. Thank Heaven we are out of the Little Ice Age and temperatures have warmed. That should have got 100% from scientists involved in climate. The second part is a little harder. What influence would be considered "significant?" Obviously, the UHI contributed to warming.

So, flawed (or loaded) questions must skew the result. Ms Carlisle however says the study comes from a tally of published papers. Several studies have looked at papers. The most recent was Cook et al. This has been rebutted many times including a peer reviewed paper: (LINK)

Friends of Science a front for the fossil fuel lobby

Previously FOS may have indirectly received some funds from energy sources however not for six or seven years. Friends of Science say: (LINK)

We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions. 

Bob Carter has not published on the question of climate science probably forever

Bob Carter has been a major contributor to the NIPCC report; arguably the best report on climate science.

Summary for Policymakers Lead Authors/Editors: Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter inter alia..

Also Bob Carter has had several books on Climate published recently,

I can image Ms Carlisle is spluttering in her lattee and saying: "I meant in peer reviewed journals."

But did she do the simplest of research? Did she even google Wikipedia? 

Selected publications

Volume 122, Issues 1–4, December 1998, Pages 23–36

Carter, Robert M. (2005). "A New Zealand climatic template back to c. 3.9 Ma: ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, south‐west Pacific Ocean, and its relationship to onland successions". Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35 (1-2): 9–42. doi:10.1080/03014223.2005.9517776.

Carter, Robert M. (2008) ).”Knock, Knock: Where is the evidence for
Dangerous Human-caused Global Warming.” Economic Analysis and Policy  38 (2): 177–202
 and Policy 38 (2): 177–202.

McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation
 on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

Land, Marissa; Wust, Raphael A.J.; Robert, Christian; Carter, Robert M. (2010)
Volume 274, Issues 1–4, 15 August 2010, Pages 165–176

I just rely on what the overwhelming majority of scientists specialising in climate say.

Argument to authority is not scientific, as we learn from Philosophy 103: (link)

Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. The main problem with this fallacy is the mere fact that many people agree on something often does not imply that what they agree on is true.
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” So, no matter how many scientist on the public tit believe the CAGW hypothesis, as Einstein says, it only takes one falsification to blow the hypothesis out the window: Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis Falsified - multiple times.

Heartland Institute is a Franchise of the Fossil Fuel Industry

In this statement, Ms Carlisle's faulty research is putting her in danger of being sued for defamation.
There have been numerous false and malicious claims that The Heartland Institute is a front for the energy industry and is funded by "the Koch brothers." These statements are often made with full knowledge they are untrue; in some cases they are made without such knowledge. 
With this notice, the reader is informed he/she will have no defense of "innocent mistake" made because of lack of knowledge and may have legal liability for defamation.-- Legal Counsel, The Heartland Institute June 2014

I wouldn't be taking a scientific opinion from someone who didn't have the expertise. etc

What, Ms Carlisle, Like this stories?

The Scottish peer Lord Monckton has been raising hell against the carbon tax in barnstorming rallies and public meetings around the country. But just who is Lord Monckton and who are the forces behind him? Chief amongst them a mysterious group called the Galileo Movement and mining magnate and now media player Gina Rinehart. Reporter Wendy Carlisle.

Heavens to Murgatroyd, Wendy. Where's your research talents? 

Google Lord Monckton, nothing mysterious- his aim is to expose the global warming hoax.

Google Galileo Movement and you can find out what you want.

Tell me, Ms Carlisle, have you read any of the NIPCC reports prepared by scientists. These reports counter the IPCC reports.

The I(ntergovernmental)PCC Summaries for Policy Makers are reviewed by line by line by government representative from  around the world before their release. Many scientists writing the reports and supplying the data do not agree with the summary. Indeed the IPCC summary does not agree with the supporting reports    

On the other hand, scientists behind the NIPCC reports all support the summaries.

- - - - - - - - - - -

More of Wendy Carlisle's Lies about Man Made Climate change:

The ABC Caught Lying about Climate Change! The ABC attack Lord Monckton with LIES!

1 comment:

  1. Have you seen the simple proof that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate?

    CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.

    During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

    Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.

    See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!