Tony Thomas: Climate Science – How She is Done by Lewandowsky and Karoly

Posted: February 22, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, climate, Education, Idiots, Incompetence, propaganda

Investigative journalist Tony Thomas emailed me with a new piece he has written for Quadrant Online. It details how Stefan Lewandowsky and David Karoly along with some others have rehashed some old greencrap based on ancient dodgy climate and health models to scare Australian schoolkids with. An instructive read:

Tony Thomas

Climate Science – How She is Done

A widely touted report detailing the current death toll from rising temperatures — which aren’t rising at all, just by the way — is even more dubious than the provenance of the 14-year-old academic guesstimate on which the current alarms are based.

With the Australian Academy of Science’s climate team now re-writing its 2010 booklet on dangerous climate change, it’s time for a bit of investigation. The original, 24-page booklet went out to nearly a million users, mainly schoolkids and teachers, so the current re-writing team has a heavy responsibility to treat the climate controversies fairly.

The Academy’s then-president, Kurt Lambeck, had gone cap in hand to the Department of Climate Change for funding of the first edition, walking away with $55,000. Sorry, Kurt, not a good look.

The 2010 document, by a working group of two AAS Fellows (Dr John Church and Dr Mike Raupach, co-chair), and seven non-Fellows brought in to lend a hand, often lapsed into advocacy, as I discussed here. One of those was Professor David Karoly, one of Australia’s most frequent climate-catastrophe publicists.

The 2010 document says the draft was “reviewed” by an Oversight Committee, of six Fellows and one non-Fellow. Asked who is re-writing and reviewing the 2014 version, the academy’s PR person informed me,

“Both groups are the same as for the previous booklet, with the exception that Professor Garth Paltridge has withdrawn and his place taken by Professor Kurt Lambeck.” (Actually Paltridge, a highly-qualified sceptic, never ‘withdrew’. He wasn’t asked to participate in the 2014 re-write).

In the case of Karoly, let’s look at his handling of some internal business of the 2010 report. In mid-2011, he published an essay on the university/CSIRO-funded blog The Conversation. His essay was the 12th in a 13-part (no less) Conversation series, each an assault on climate sceptics. In the 13th essay, Karoly and other signatories endorsed the interesting claim that 140,000 people are being killed annually by climate change.

There seems a real risk that this improbable factoid could worm its way into the Academy’s re-write, terrifying the schoolkids.

Read the full story here

 

Comments
  1. markstoval says:

    I enjoyed this report very much. Thanks for posting it. I even tried to “like” it but wordpress seems to not be letting me this morning. 😦

    Since the topic is really the propagandizing of school children, and that is a favorite topic of mine, I wondered about something that has bothered me since the 80s. What do we tell school children about “greenhouse gases” and is what we tell them science proven by observation and experiment?

    For example, I have thought that it may be that planet earth would be about the same temperature as it is now if the atmosphere was 100% nitrogen rather than 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and 1% other trace gases. Are there any experiments that have been done (repeatable ones hopefully) to demonstrate what really causes the surface temps on a planet?

    Again, good post.

    — Mark

  2. tallbloke says:

    Hi Mark: Good questions! I wrote a short piece a while back which looks at the question of why the average surface temperature of the Earth is so much higher than the surface temperature of the Moon, which are both at the same average distance from the Sun. Tell me what you think of it.

    Why Earth’s surface is so much warmer than the Moon’s – Part 1

    As for greenhouse experiments; there’s no question that in a lab bell jar it can be demonstrated that IR active gases absorb LW radiation. The important issue is the validity of extrapolating the result to the free atmosphere, where ocean surface water absorbs the latent heat of vaporisation, evaporates, and rises past the co2 layer to radiate freely to space. This is why convection has to be included in models as well as radiation. The so called ‘coupled convective-radiative’ models have problems. This is something Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have investigated.

    Nikolov and Zeller: Reply to comments on the UTC part 1

  3. ren says:

    Tallbloke I wrote an article. If it want, you can take advantage of.
    http://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A//losyziemi.pl/

  4. markstoval says:

    @ talllbloke

    Thanks, I’ll read and digest the two links.

  5. John Francis says:

    Markstoval asked the excellent question about experiments, While Tallbloke’s referenced papers are good, they are explanations. It is a travesty that no-one appears to have conducted some easy experiments with columns of air and columns of CO2 to actually demonstrate and quantify the effects. Or have I just not come across them?

  6. tallbloke says:

    Thanks ren, posted.

  7. hunter says:

    The report is a nice take down of yet another bit of faux science by Lewandowsky.
    He is mentioned as a “former” professor. Has his employment status changed lately?

  8. tallbloke says:

    Hunter: He moved to Exeter unu in UK

  9. Brian H says:

    In reality, warming likely reduces the death rate, especially since it concentrates in the coldest latitudes. So maybe 140,000 is right, but the sign is wrong. A common situation in climate models.

  10. skience says:

    There’s more duplicity:

    Lewandowsky