Is it possible for the sea to rise by 100 metres this century? I was asked that odd question by Andrew Bolt, who is well known for writing incendiary columns refuting climate change in Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper.
The question was odd for two reasons: first, I am not an authority on climate and do no research as a scientist; second, I was supposed to be interviewing Bolt, not the other way around.
My reason for inviting him to the studio to appear on my ABC Radio program, The Science Show, was straightforward: I had recently been to the renowned Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in La Jolla, California; it was here that atmospheric carbon dioxide had first been monitored 50 years ago. I was at the institute to talk to ice core scientist Jeff Severinghaus about his work.
Severinghaus is a tall, friendly man whose analysis of gases over geologic time scales has shown that temperatures go up as CO2 increases.
He had also observed that the beginning of historic warming periods are not immediately preceded by such a rise in gas. As a result, both Andrew Bolt and other critics of anthropogenic warming (not least the notorious film The Great Global Warming Swindle, aired on ABC TV in July 2007) had proclaimed loudly that our present warming need have nothing to do with greenhouse gases made by humans.
Jeff Severinghaus told me this was totally inaccurate and his work was being distorted, wilfully or not. I duly brought back his interview to be broadcast on ABC Radio and, silly fellow that I am, thought Bolt might appreciate being given a right of reply.
So there I was, facing the notorious newspaper columnist, expecting a swift exchange along the lines of what I've done thousands of times before — on matters of fact.
Instead, what happened next was that each answer contained a gratuitous smear of climate scientists of the likes of Tim Flannery of Sydney's Macquarie University, who'd expressed global concerns about humanity's prospects in the face of climate change. Then, unexpectedly, I was asked whether it was possible that sea levels could rise by 100 metres this century.
I had talked to scientists whose peer-reviewed evidence indicated that mammoth rises were possible under extreme circumstances. As it happened, in Arizona, I'd met leading geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck.
Overpeck's published results last year had gone around the world warning that rises had been grossly underestimated, not least by the highly cautious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which projected a mere 52 centimetre rise.
Overpeck had told me that, historically, the rises had been 120 metres down and 100 metres up from present levels. This was very unlikely to happen soon, but, should temperature increases exceed 3-6°C, "all bets are off".
So my answer was, "Yes, but…"
"Right" of reply
Robyn, interesting you should mention Darwin in your last para. I doubt Bolt believes in evolution.
That aside, even as a great fan of yours I have to say you made a classic journalist's mistake: wanting to grant the minority skeptic equal right of reply. If these people were given proportional right of reply (in proportion to their numbers) they would perhaps get 5 minutes air time once a month at 2 am. The "fair" media gives these dangerous people way too much exposure. Let them have freedom of expression, by all means - they can print their own pamphlets, mount their own websites, rant in newsgroups, use YouTube, whatever. But don't grant the witch burners "equal" time in mainstream media, especially not one paid for with my tax dollars.
The same mistake was made in airing The Great Global Warming Swindle. It was absolute tripe, as you so much more diplomatically point out. It should not be banned, but it certainly didn't deserve prime time airing. Only Tony Jones' follow up debate saved it from being a complete capitulation to the dark side.
Finally, don't try arguing logically with irrational people. It can't be done.
David Gibson, Melbourne
Agreed
They really are to climate science what the tobacco-cancer link deniers were to medicine and what Holocaust deniers are to history.
Yet they would characterise global warming concern as a new faith. Psychologists call this projection.
Please...
Paint with a slightly smaller brush.
The hockey stick graph has already been convincingly debunked (the algorithm used to create it would produce a hockey stick graph out of ANY input sets, even random noise!). The claim that "the last few years were the warmest in the last 100 to 500 years" has also been debunked and then hastily “corrected” by the original issuer of the statement (Hansen, if I recall correctly). The warmest years were actually in like the 1930's! Likewise, the claim that this last October was the warmest on record has also been debunked (apparently there's little quality control over incoming data at GISS, and a bunch of numbers, from Russia, I believe, were simply carried over from September and repeated in October and skewed the output). Why is it that James Hansen's / GISS's data (which is apparently in disagreement with several other major sources of temperature trend data) is the most commonly quoted? Just because it shows "runaway warming" where other sources DO NOT (rather showing a cyclical warming and trend that has actually been COOLING since around 1998)?
If it weren't for "skeptics" or independent auditors these facts wouldn't be known AT ALL, and people would simply have to believe the tripe being crammed down our throats from on high.
Skepticism isn't a bad word. It's a good word. Good scientists SHOULD BE skeptics and hold themselves to a high standard (IE, self-police, self-audit, and weed out bad data). That it hasn't been done does not speak well of the system, if it takes outsiders to point out its flaws (at great pains, one might add: in terms of time spent, in terms of public ridicule by people who haven't "done their homework," etc.).
Just my 2c, of course.
P.S. The reference to "holocaust deniers" and "tobacco industry apologists" is specious and should probably be withdrawn. Really has no place in a civil discussion. Amounts to little more than name-calling.
You're kidding "right"...
"Right", as in only someone from the right could possibly think that the sea level won't rise by 100 meters? Twas Robyn who has been pushing this complete lie, not Bolt or anyone else.
I suggest Dave Gibson, that it is in fact you who are dangerous. "Don't give air time to anyone who disagrees with my position!" Very authoritarian of you. It wouldn't matter anyway, as the "air time" to which you refer, only has a dozen of so people listening anyway including your good self.
Regarding the great global warming swindle, can you point to a single error in fact in the entire publication? I doubt it...
"Right" of reply - reply
If Tony Jones had spent as much time investigating Gore's AIT, as he did TGGWS, he may have found that it "was absolute tripe". The likes of Al Gore, Robyn Williams and Tim Flannery float around making these sensational claims about global warming without any regard for the truth and when challenged by the likes of Mr Bolt slither out from under their outrageous claims. I look forward to the day when they have to appear in court to defend their claims under cross examination as happened in England last year. There a High Court judge ruled that climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, contains nine scientific errors one being its claim about sea level rises.
I also hate seeing taxpayer funds being used by the ABC to promote global warming, not question it, as they should, as a supposedly independent broadcaster. Tony Jones and Robyn Williams lead the ABC global warming cheer squad.
arguing with irrational people
Only an easily led shallow minded trogladyte like you could (a) believe this global warming tripe and (b) typical of your vanity in believing it, deny other people the right of reply.
I am sure you call anyone who disagrees a denialist. It shows the huge faultline in your mind that you can equate the Holocaust and its deniers with a reasoned debate on science. It is the duty of any scientist to be sceptical . That is how inquiry advances science aned technology.
Your lot deny any scepticism with expressions like , the science is in.
What does that mean? DOes it mean the science is in a shoebox>, In a debate?, in a bottle bobbing in the ocean, in someone's fantasy for setting up a pyramid selling system like the AGW scam?
Generally agreed.
While I agree in general, the name-calling isn't called for. It's quite possible to state a case without resorting to insulting one's debate opponents.
In any event, I agree that science is rarely "settled" and that debate is not a "luxury," it's a necessity. Without two sides to a debate, there is no *debate*, there is only *proclamation*.
It has been proclaimed by the likes of Mann & Hansen that there is a "runaway warming" threat, epitomized by the hockey stick graph. The graph has been debunked as a biased algorithm that selects for ANY hockey stick shapes in data, even random noise. Garbage in (bad algorithm), garbage out (hockey stick graphs for any input, even "noise").
The graph has been scrutinized by the likes of McIntyre, Watts and McKitrick, and found to be lacking and biased. There has been strangely little cooperation from Mann & Hansen, except by what amounts to arm-twisting, in independently auditing their data and algorithms. IE, McIntyre, McKitrick and/or Watts asked for the algorithms used to produce the hockey stick graphs or the other various claims, and were basically told "no." To my mind, that's simply not scientific, nor good policy.
If public policy (using public funds) is being written based upon data from Hansen, Mann, or others, their data and algorithms (not just the final resulting graphs) should be made available and fully auditable. To do otherwise seems disingenuous, scientifically speaking. Tantamount to saying "How dare you question our results?" or "Take it on faith that our data and algorithms are correct..."
In science, peer review and error-checking are (or should be) cornerstones of the scientific method. To disallow full error-checking is to put science in a precarious position.
As stated previously I also agree that equating scientific skeptics (not to be confused with pseudo-skeptics) with holocaust deniers and tobacco industry apologists is simply specious at the level of name-calling.
is science about debates???
Operation - Some action done to the system being investigated
Observation - What happens when the operation is done to the system
Model - A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility function
philosophy is about debating.
good science should be about looking at data. From this data coming to logical conclusions.
I am not saying that the alternative view isn't doing this. Maybe because its debatable then the data isn't strong enough to draw out strong enough conclusions. However no part in the scientific method does it say "if conclusions are controversial have a big debate"
rather,
"conclusions are based on evidence. If conclusions are controversial more evidence is needed"
Debate about philosophy or something. Let scientists get more data.
maybe this is bull shit but hey thats what i reckon.
peace and love.
Bolt's brain has been cooling for 10 years now
I completely agree with you. These people are without reason, determined to make any noise no matter how grubby they need to get. You have pinged them perfectly.
Bolt's written a reply. Just rehashed his boring manu-facts. He's determined to keep his stupidity going. This caught my eye:
I wonder which single digit we would get if we worked out Andrew Bolt's linking rate to peer-reviewed climate science journals out of the hundreds and hundres of 'sceptical' posts and articles he's written in attempting to discredit AGW. And yet THAT is the nub of this petty criticism he has lovingly nurtured for flying monkey fodder for over a year now!? Bald-faced cheek.
A person who tries to discredit science by not referencing only intends making noise. I don't think you should give any Bolt time in the future. He shows not goodwill, and is currently apoplectic because you dissected him like a chip-spitting frog: He is so mad he wishes you to lose your job, reputation, maybe even your self-esteem:
Lovely breed, these professional anthropogenic global warming deniers.
Wadard
Global Warming Watch
A heated debate
"The noise they make is out of all proportion to their puny numbers"
Robyn if you had been at the recent public debate with David Karoly in Melbourne you would have heard a large number of clearly well educated and experienced scientists calmly and rationally criticizing David's presentation and pointing out the extent of the uncertainties and assumptions in what he was saying. I can assure you that many of us who teach post-graduate students how to analyse the scientific literature are yet to be convinced this issue is all that important.