Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

News Ltd.

Mar 29, 2011

And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?

Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterda

User login status :

Share

Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”

What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

We’re talking about a system in which the temperature is increasing. The best we can hope for in the shorter term is to slow that increase down, maybe if we’re lucky stop it completely. The more countries that act, the better our chances, and the quicker we’ll reduce the damage. That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring – but the time-scale he talks about is nothing to do with when there’d first be a difference between acting and not acting.

Even if it’ll take a long time to return the system to the earlier levels (and I’m glad to hear that that’s even possible), the immediate challenge is to reduce the increase. That’s what the proposed action is supposed to achieve, and that’s what we’re debating.

So Abbott’s misrepresentation of Flannery’s remark is not only dishonest, it also indicates that he hasn’t the faintest idea what his opponents are actually talking about.

Labor and climate scientists and the Greens and anyone with an interest in rational public debate all need to be out there right now squashing this stupid meme before it takes any more hold on the gullible. Because once this one sinks in, they’ll find something even more outrageously stupid and build up the ignorance even further. It has to be tackled now, and exposed for the moronic fraud it is.

Let’s see who in the media actually call Abbott on his shameless misrepresentation of Flannery, and the ignorance about the actual proposal that his remarks reveal. Anyone?

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Mr Lefty

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

150 comments

150 thoughts on “And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?

  1. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    2001-2008 is not long enough to show a trend Tones. You said it yourself.

    Gee, look at all this cooling.

    Oh shit. Well, maybe I’ll pick 1972 instead.

    Still no cooling? What a drag for you when the noise has been cleared out and the trend is both obvious and statistically significant.

    The sad thing is I don’t even think Tones9 believes his own argument. Ask yourself Tones – if you are right, why do you need to cherry-pick? It’s sad to watch you cherry-pick 2001-2008 and claim cooling despite having previously argued that you need minimum 10 years for a trend.

    Sad, hypocritical and desperate.

    I do look forward to what you’ll cherry-pick next.

  2. tones9

    Ladies and gentlemen, heavylambs is as big a dumbass as Rich.

    He wasn’t even brave enough to post his graph of ignorance.

    Here is the correct graph showing cooling trend of -0.04C.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2008/trend

    Here is my best guess at heavylambs twisted brain.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2007/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2007/trend

    The biggest error is that it does not include any data for the year 2007.
    Heavylambs has problems with counting.
    How 0.045C trend was derived is harder to work out.
    Perhaps the mean divided by 10?
    The 2007 end point divided by 10?
    I don’t know how retard brains work.

    And heavylambs continues to be arrogant enough to claim he’s always right.

  3. heavylambs

    Tones@124, according to your pet measure HADCRUTv3, 2001-2007 warmed..by 0.02C, What are you smoking? Check it,then check WFT. That’s why chumps..sorry,”sceptics”, were so relieved when they could crow about 2001-2008 as if it meant jack-shit.

    Care to address uncertainty margins,tones? Nope. The [low] diagnostic value of decadal periods? Nope. The low skill in predicting ENSO states for the end of this year? Nope. Why adding,and continuing to add, CO2 to the lower atmosphere won’t provide a persistent warming forcing to the climate system,no matter strong internal variability in the short term? Nope. Why you don’t know the difference between weather and climate? Nope.

    Why would I call “cooling a warming pause”? It isn’t demonstrably cooling according to HADCRUTv3 when acknowledging real uncertainty margins and meteorological standards.

    When will warming resume? There is no evidence that it has stopped;its effects continue even if the gauge is static,and its effects [continued land ice loss, sea-ice loss and downtrend in global annual snow cover] lead to further warming.

    Are we experiencing accelerated warming? Over a climatologically meaningful period? Yes. Over a ten year period? No.

    Where is all the warming inertia? In the deep oceans and cryosphere.

    HADCRUTv3 is just one take of one measure of one property of the near-surface atmosphere,tones. It is pretty useless trying to make system-encompassing claims for it,when we observe much of that system in so many ways.

  4. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    And another one.

    So by your own rules it’s still warming.

  5. Rich Uncle Skeleton
  6. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Goodness.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like cherypicking for such short periods doesn’t work.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 it’s almost like you can use statistics over short periods to show anything you want.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like you need longer periods to infer whether it is statistically significant or not.

  7. heavylambs

    “In 2008,sceptics claimed correctly cooling since 2001” What a sad and pathetic offering. Yep,they sure like saying meaningless things,those “sceptics”. They are very good at unwittingly noting that the signal of interannual weather variability exceeds the signal of GW every year. While they were busy unwittingly noticing that,the global temperature kept rising at a scale that was meaningful in terms of climate. Where were all those “sceptics” claiming warming from 2001-2006,2001-2007,or 2007 to 2010 according to HADCRUTv3? Why do these periods have no message for “sceptics”?

    Tones needs to understand what an error margin/uncertainty value is. The uncertainty value for his preferred dataset is +/- 0.1C. Claiming climatic significance for ten years of weather data is poor enough,but claiming cooling when his figure [0.03] is well inside to such an error band is unjustifiable. All you can say with real scientific caution,from HAD CRUT, is that warming of the atmosphere just above the surface has paused,according_to_that_metric_alone. Given the other three metrics show,within their uncertainties,that atmospheric warming continues,it just as feasible to say with your preferred incaution that warming continues.

    There is very little justification for asserting that the globe is cooling if only one of the four data sets “supports” your argument,and that data set is the one that samples the least area. In fact there is no reasonable justification at all. Lack of justification would never inhibit you though would it,Tones?

    There is very little justification for acting as though,since the IPCCs occasional reports use HADCRUTv3, HADCRUTv3 takes precedence in the field. In fact there is no reasonable justification at all. The IPCC is simply an information node that takes a snapshot of the state of the science up to a year before publication.

    Tones needs to understand the take-home form Fawcett & Jones. (Hint.It’s in the title)
    And in the bland observation “there is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away”. However little it takes,eh,Tones?

  8. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    No wonder Tones9 wasn’t keen to link back to his BoM reference as it basically says the opposite of what he says it does.

    How very surprising that Tones9 would cherrypick the years 1998-2007 and claim that it was the last decade. Here I was thinking he was an upstanding citizen and not a reality-denying troglodyte.

    Anyway, let’s look at the years 2000-2010 on Wood For Trees using the GISS dataset set to a linear trend so Tones9 can’t lie about cooling. Yes, it shows warming. As he argues that this is statistically significant (and I would disagree) it destroys his argument.

    Don’t like GISS? How about HADCRUT? Or UAH?

    Playing by Tones9 rules they all show warming!

    Tones9 is a liar and a cherry picker. In other breaking news, the sky is blue.

  9. heavylambs

    “Heavylambs should learn to read previous posts” Ordinarily,you couldn’t afford my rate,Tones..but lucky you!

    So I trawl back to find you have lifted David Jones statement from the intro to “Still Waiting for Global Cooling”,an article he penned in April 2008 with Robert Fawcett at the National Climate Centre. The paper indeed contains the bit you like ,but it dismisses zombie arguments such as yours for the period it covers, 1998-2007, nonetheless.

    Again,a signal “emerging” after ten years is not a signal confirmed.The WMO prefers to wait thirty years,given the known influences of longer pseudo-oscillations like the PDO.
    Whatever,tones,given that you have not actually established a cooling trend [0.02C,uncertainty,etc],it’s moot. Given also recent ten year trends-however meaningful- in sea level [up], land ice mass balance [down],to suggest that the earth is cooling is pretty feeble. There is simply not yet evidence,no matter your fervid wishes.

    Feeble also is your handling of that recent paper on Kilimanjaro [Fairman et al 2011] which pointedly states:

    “This study addresses only the impact of deforestation on one dry season month” That leaves eleven months,wet and dry unmodelled…

    “..land use change has little effect on cloudiness and rainfall at elevations in excess of 4000m,and is not expected to impact glaciers in the summit zone of Kilimanjaro in the dry season.The effect in other seasons requires further investigation” They make NO connection between glacial state changes on Kilimanjaro and landuse changes which may -may- influence precipitation at altitudes below 4000m.

    IOW,you,like Watts and implicitly Roger “comments off” Pielke Sr who facetiously promoted this study as something it was not,have completely misrepresented its findings. How very surprising.