Scare mongering ABC journos need your help

Unfortunately ABC's current batch of bed wetting activists  reporters were born without the sense of perspective gene. This important gene helps normal people discern pure sensationalism from information that we need to pay attention to. Without the gene ABC's affected reporters appear incapable of telling fact from fiction and as a result it is open to spreading sensationalist propaganda.

Case in point is a report yesterday by ABC's Hamish Fitzsimmons. It appears that a dysfunctional perspective gene has affected  Hamish's ability to do basic research.

Here's Hamish's headline:
Sea level rises due to climate change could cost Australia $200b, Climate Council report finds
In his report Hamish provides a platform for professional doom-sayer Will Steffan to make the following statement:

"If you look at a 1.1 metre sea level rise - which is the high-end scenario for 2100 but that's what we're tracking towards - you're looking at more than $200 billion worth of infrastructure that's at risk." "If you look at some of our most vulnerable areas, and the Sydney region is one of those, you would say toward the end of this century that a one-in-100-year flood is going to be happening every few days," he said.

In regard to a sea level rise of 1.1m (1100mm) Will Steffan says "That's what we're tracking towards". Really?

Hamish didn't bother looking at the facts, nor it seems did the alarmist Climate Council. We spent approximately 30 seconds on the internet to locate the following chart from the
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL):

Fort Denison: monthly mean sea level data

This shows long term sea level in the Sydney area. The graph shows flattish trends from the start of the record to about 1950, then a step change, followed by flattish trends to the end of the data. A simplistic linear regression analysis would provide an average annual sea level rise of about 0.55 mm per year. Extrapolated to 2100 this would amount to an additional rise of 47 mm. This is a very small fraction of what Steffen believes "we're tracking towards".

We have a bunch of alarmist activist scientists who it seems are incapable of analysing real world data feeding gullible reporters who basically appear unwilling to check the facts. The end result is the spread of misinformation.

Unfortunately at this stage there is no cure to what is being called Sponge Syndrome.

Update: The chart below extends the raw Denison data forwards in time and shows what needs to happen in order to satisfy the Climate Councils notion of what we're tracking towards". This lacks credibility and the ABC should ask the council about it.

Lies of the Climate Commission: Part 12

ABC's AM once again offers uncritical coverage of the Climate Commission's latest report.
Meanwhile a few letter writers in The Australian point out some logical fallacies in a puff piece by climate Kommisar Steffen, including this one:

Climate tsar skirts dysfunctional models to scare us
WILL Steffen continues to promulgate misinformation about the climate ("Clean up energy for the sake of our grandchildren", 23/7). Passing over the rotten entrails of dysfunctional climate models that have not lived up to promise, he has moved on to using extreme weather to scare a populace into extreme action.
So Steffen points to recent weather extremes as portents of a coming doom, claiming it's a future we don't have to have, if only we bow at the Climate Commissioner's altar, shake our tail feathers and pay our dues.
When seen in their historical context, however, the numerous wet and dry periods and extreme weather events that have affected the country are unconnected to carbon dioxide levels. Looking at past weather records it's clearly a future we have already had and one our descendants will continue to experience, regardless of what we do today.
The commission continues to push for inconsequential marginal solutions to our weather and energy problems, ignoring the obvious solutions built around effectively dealing with the extremely routine weather events we know about all too well. If the problem was fixed with levees, dams, and nuclear power what would our witch-doctors do for a living?

Marc Hendrickx




The Australian's Cut and paste also adds some cherries missing from Will's basket:
Climate researcher Will Steffen in The Australian yesterday:
OVER the past decade, the Swedes have reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide by about 13 per cent, the best performance of any of the world's wealthy countries. Over the same period, the Swedish economy has recorded a higher rate of GDP growth than any of the OECD's "big seven" economies. So much for the myth taking vigorous action on climate change will damage or slow the economy.

Something Steffen forgot to mention? From Energy in Sweden, 2010, Swedish Energy Agency:
IN 2009, nuclear power supplied 37 per cent of the country's electricity, hydro power supplied 49 per cent and wind power almost 2 per cent, with the remaining 12 per cent being made up of fossil-fuelled and biofuel-based production.

Something else Steffen forgot? The Economist, June 6:
ANNUAL growth as high as 6.4 per cent in the first quarter. Unemployment falling fast. The budget in surplus this year. Public debt heading to below 40 per cent of GDP. How did the Swedes do it? . . . the main answer is the prudent pro-market policies of Fredrik Reinfeldt'scentre-right coalition, which came to power in October 2006.

Lies of the climate commission: Part 7 manufacturing certainty

One of my favourite quotes is by the late great Physicist Richard Feynman who described Cargo Cult Science thus:

"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

Consider now the following slide from a presentation by the government's Climate commissar, Prof. Will Steffen, titled Climate Change 2009: Faster Change and More Serious Risks. Notice anything missing?

This is IPCC AR4 WG1 FAQ 2.1, Figure 2 -see page 136 of AR4 WG1 Chapter 2. A more complete version of this figure is published in the summary for policy makers (reproduced below from Summary for Policy Makers Figure SPM2 - see page 4). This includes important information about the error range of various forcing components along with an assessment of the level of scientific understanding (LOSU) for various forcings. Note the LOSU of a number of forcings, important in determining the amount of any future warming (or cooling) are described as Low, or Medium to Low. 

The errors for direct aerosols are a whopping 80%, with errors in cloud cover effects even greater. 

In a presentation to policy makers and the Australian public why would Commissar Steffen prefer the incomplete version? Why does he prefer to hide the errors and uncertainties?

Australia's Climate Commission provides a great example of cargo cult science in action. The ABC does the same for journalism.