Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has set up a blog, with the first topic for discussion
climate change. One Malcolm has taken up the opportunity to post copious volumes of alleged “facts” that purport to show that the PM has failed to exercise “due diligence”. The blog bizarrely prevents posting of internet links of any sort making it hard to point directly at factual content to debunk this stuff.
I am guessing here at the specific book “Malcolm” has used as source material but I won't name it since he doesn't (he mentions the author's name, Plimer, but I don't have the book I’m thinking of in front of me so I will take it as Malcolm’s contribution; if anyone has the Plimer book, feel free to comment on the “Malcolm” interpretation).
This whole thing reminds me of the Monty Python Hungarian Phrasebook sketch, in which pranksters have published a phrasebook rendering commonly-used tourist questions from the original Hungarian into inappropriate English (e.g., “Can you direct me to the railway station?” in Hungarian is translated to “Please fondle my buttocks.”).
5 comments:
Greetings, Philip.
It was an active discussion on the PM's blog.
True, the limitations of the particular blog protocol (e.g., no links) made references difficult, but the limitations did have the effect of requiring postings to actually be written communications summarized and stated by the contributors.
I thought the conversation was by and large civil and above all illustrative of both misconceptions and also honest differences in analysis and interpretations of data and climate drivers.
I appreciate your intellectual engagement on the subject, but I would urge you to resist the tendency to classify too quickly as 'rubbish' attempts to offer interpretations and comments which are critical of what you refer to as 'mainstream science'. I can say in all fairness that is also a suggestion which those who disagree with some of the conclusions of the 'consensus' should practice as well, and I will do my best to do the same.
In any event, and owing to your main background in computing, I would look forward to future discussions of the modeling topic in particular, as I have interests and expertise in both parallel processing and large-scale, compute-intensive modeling of dynamic systems.
Having said that, Monty Python bits are always good for a laugh, and we can always use more of that.
cheers,
JeffB
p.s., the link at your former page on the uq.edu.au site for the 'alleged comprehensive solution' to video on demand is broken (not found at Syracuse). Would you by any chance have a fresh link or, if not, a copy of the document ?
Thanks much,
-JeffB
JeffB, my frustration with contributions like that of Plimer is that he has the background and knowledge to mount a genuine challenge, which is what any branch of science needs to test its theories and findings. That he has published a book riddled with errors that puts people using it as a source into the position of making fools of themselves is inexcusable. I like to be right, but accept that I can make mistakes, which is why I am pleased to live in a democracy. If you page through this blog you will see there have generally been robust but on the whole friendly discussions (with minor exceptions mostly from anonymous contributors, which I do not delete even if I take them less seriously than those who have some sort of name).
As for discussions on modelling, I'm not sure if we can go to far on something like the PM's blog because it would lose most readers. Feel free to discuss issues as relevant here.
The video on demand thing was part of a project that didn't get too far (I moved on to other things) but you can pick up the basic ideas at http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~philip/Research/FastTrack/ (unfortunately I no longer have login access to that site so I can't fix bad links).
I have not been to the PM's blog, but I have read Plimer's book 'Heaven + Earth' (H+E) and reviewed it at my site NOAH'S RAINBOW SERPENT. There is much argument in it relating to data re atmospheric warming, and Plimer understandably attacks the reliability of any data which does not agree with his case.
But as James Lovelock has pointed out, the best guide to global heat content is sea level, which is steadily rising according to the U. of Colorado data.
Post a Comment