RTFR, Jack

homer.jpg The old sea dog at the helm of our little flotilla of climate cranks has fired a broadside at the NIWA scientists involved in the preparation of this week’s revised climate projections for New Zealand. Yes, step forward Rear Admiral Jack Welch, who’s in fine bombastic form (perhaps he’s been taking lessons from Heartland’s J Bast Esq.) in a media release from the NZ CSC. According to Jack, “NIWA scientists have become political propagandists”:

The State Services Commission should investigate whether scientists of NIWA have crossed the boundary into politics with their sudden flurry of advocacy for action on so-called global warming at a time when the Government is struggling to gain support in Parliament for its Emissions Trading Scheme Bill. This today from the chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Rear Admiral Jack Welch. “This flurry of advocacy has all the hallmarks of political spin, which has appalled the scientists associated with our coalition. Worse, NIWA is breaching the principles of good science by not qualifying its climate predictions with appropriate disclaimers.

Oh, the shock and the shame. Bow your heads, ye Nobel prizewinners, because the Admiral has spoken. He continues:

“Projections of future climate are not predictions, but speculation. They come from global climate models that have not been verified, so their output is merely conjecture. This is recognised across the Tasman, where the Australian CSIRO attaches a disclaimer to all its reports, such as this one on a report from the Queensland Government: ‘This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the Queensland Government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance in this report.’

Unfortunately for the Rear Admiral, here’s what it says on page 2 of the report he’s complaining about:

As explained in the report, developing projections of future climate changes is still subject to significant uncertainty. The authors have used the best available information in preparing this report, and have interpreted this information exercising all reasonable skill and care. Nevertheless none of the organisations involved in its preparation accept any liability, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising out of the provision of information in this report.

And a little bit later, in the executive summary (p xiii):

A definitive single quantitative prediction of how much a particular climatic element (eg, heavy rainfall intensity) will change over coming decades is not feasible. This is because the rate of climate change will depend on future global emissions of greenhouse gases, which in turn depend on global social, economic and environmental policies and development. Incomplete scientific knowledge about some of the processes governing the climate, and natural year-to- year variability, also contribute to uncertainty in projections for the future.

Seems to cover all of Jack’s points, and we haven’t even started reading the main body of the report (which is well worth reading in full).

Read The Flaming Report, Jack, before rushing to the media to complain about it. Sadly, I don’t think you bothered. I hope and expect that you will issue an equally speedy apology.

But I’m not holding my breath.

51 thoughts on “RTFR, Jack”

  1. “This flurry of advocacy has all the hallmarks of political spin, which has appalled the scientists associated with our coalition.”

    Climate cranks have no understanding of unintentional irony.

  2. Ha.

    Still, does he have a point about the “flurry of advocacy”? Are they actually engaging in advocacy or simply responding to questions in regards to action? I would’ve thought advocacy would be over stepping the bounds a bit…

  3. I’ve read the press release and can’t see any examples of advocacy from NIWA: it looks like Rear Admiral Jack is foaming at the mouth over the fact that he didn’t find the qualifiers on page 2. If only he’d got a tiny bit further than the title page…

  4. NIWA were commissioned to update the climate change guidance to local government, using the latest modelling. Which they did. It’s hardly NIWA doing the advocating – all they’re doing is saying “this is what might happen, so take it into account when doing your planning”.

    Jack just doesn’t like the attention they’re getting.

  5. If I was writing the disclaimer for a report like this I would be more concerned about the possibility that the IPCC under-estimates the impacts of climate change.

    It is very rare for anyone to be held liable for being over-conservative but you can be 100% sure that if a city seawall fails because it is overtaken by sea level rise then there will be a whole lot of claims against the local authority and/or insurers – both of whom would have a crack at NIWA et al if they could.

  6. Wow… before I got to reading the press release, I was wondering, “Is this, um, yet another cornucopia of ‘climate models bad’ memefest? Did the Admiral also trot out the ‘they can’t predict weather, how can they predict climate’ talking point?”

    And sure enough, he did…

    I suppose that makes a Level III Junior Goracle or something.

    — bi, International Journal of Inactivism

  7. Oh,I rather think the good Admiral knew exactly what he was saying and what was on page two.

    And everyone will see and remember the topic de jour…which is all about disclaimers as to accuracy.

    *s*

  8. enzer:

    Good point. Perhaps the issue is whether the disclaimers are “appropriate”, in the sense of the word postulated by the Admiral.

    I think what he’d accept as an “appropriate” disclaimer is this:

    “The climate projections in this report are totally bogus guesswork which we made up from thin air, magic pixie dust, and invisible pink fluff. It is somewhat likely (that is, there is a possibility of infinitesimally more than 0) that the projections have some relationship with reality, but the truth is, since we don’t know everything, therefore obviously we know nothing. Oh, and it is also somewhat likely that we had been coerced by a Vast Left-Wing Global Warmist Conspiracy into producing this excuse of a report.”

    — bi, International Journal of Inactivism

  9. What I really love about the NZ Climate Science (sic) coalition is their quote about their site ‘to represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change’, then quote the great climate scientist – Mark Twain, then have a hundred so called scientific reports on their version of climate science. However, some of their reports are on the lines of – yes, global warming is happening, but it’s the sun, then you get the reports that say – no its not happening- it stopped in 1998 and the temperature has remained the same since, then you get the old report that says… watch out here comes an ice age. It’s great, using their logic, even those who fail 4th form science can now call themselves scientist :).

  10. Speaking of cranks & idiots I see your resident evangelist Cindy was on Prime’s GW debate last night preaching her tired old unconvincing message of skeptics all being paid by oil companies.

    What a waste of space. Why even invite her as she really had nothing of value to add.

    And while the guy from NIWA had more to say, he also imho was not convincing either.

    And for those who listened to talkback after the show last night, I think it was all bar two callers who thought the whole man made GW issue was a big scam.

    Hey, Gareth, that wasn’t you and Cindy who called in supporting the issue was it ? lol.

    And Cindy do your own homework, tobacco does NOT cause cancer. It is the chemical additives added to the tobacco. Look for the minutes of a meeting before the US congress in 1998. The testimony was that they were UNABLE to induce lung cancer in lab rats using ‘organic’ (untreated) tobacco.

  11. “And for those who listened to talkback after the show last night, I think it was all bar two callers who thought the whole man made GW issue was a big scam”

    Oh well then, if the listeners to talkback say it is a scam, then it must be. Once again, those who does understand the science know more about climate science than climate scientist.

    Batnv, do your own homework, talkback listeners are always right you know.

  12. Tushara, I really think the general public are more informed and not as stupid as the UN, and possibly you, think they are.

    “Once again, those who does understand the science know more about climate science than climate scientist.”

    So Tushara would that be your 2500 IPCC idols ?

    I have done my homework which is why I believe that AGW is a political hoax.

    Maybe you should practice what you preach. I have.

  13. batnv…

    2500 IPPC idols? I really don’t think you do know what you are talking about, you mean ‘expert reviewers’?

    No, they all don’t conduct climate science research, but just review it.

    Done your homework, really, so where is your evidence? A political hoax? Gees, this shows that you are indeed clueless. The scientific research has been around for nearly 150 years.

    You will find that it is you that is stupid and lame. How sad it is, trolling on climate change information websites.

    I think you will find that I do practice what I preach. What kind of sad statement is that, just a poor reflection on yourself no doubt.

  14. Though if that’s what Cindy did, I’m not sure that was too relevant to that particular discussion…? If it was meant to be a science discussion, I’m not even sure why Cindy was there, or Smith for that matter, as they both seem to engage in purely advocacy roles.

  15. Tushara

    “you mean ‘expert reviewers’?”

    Ah…no I don’t actually. Expert BS artists maybe ?

    “No, they all don’t conduct climate science research, but just review it.”

    At least we agree on that bit but you left out the cherry picking of the data.

    “Done your homework, really, so where is your evidence? A political hoax? Gees, this shows that you are indeed clueless.”

    The evidence is all over, just don’t limit yourself to reading from your IPCC bible. If I was indeed clueless that would put me in the same catergory as yourself and I asure you that I am not. You Tushara are a special dying breed of sheeple easily conned because you believe that governments and their cronnies don’t or wouldn’t lie to the masses so if they tell you that the planet is warming, it’s going to be catasrophic and it’s all our fault then it must be so. Now that’s clueless !!

    “The scientific research has been around for nearly 150 years.”

    Sorry not sure where your going with this one. Don’t we have records of climate data going way back past 150 years ???

    “You will find that it is you that is stupid and lame. How sad it is, trolling on climate change information websites.”

    Really, because I don’t believe your deluded thoughts ? Trolling eh, and maybe you could provide the nice people here with a list of those sites I troll on.

    “I think you will find that I do practice what I preach. What kind of sad statement is that, just a poor reflection on yourself no doubt.”

    The only sad thing here Tushara is that you have been so easily conned and can’t see it.

    Gareth

    “I have to say, bat, that the quality of your homework is appalling. You’ll have to stay in after school.”

    Sorry Gareth but if it’s your school of propaganda, I’m bunking. lol…

    Stephen, I agree with you about Smith also but a least he did have a variety of things to say although he also was not talking science.

  16. batnv:

    “And while the guy from NIWA had more to say, he also imho was not convincing either.”

    Yeah, who needs this “logic” and “facts” and “falsifiability” stuff? The standard of proof is whether the speakers were “convincing”, where “convincing” is defined by batnv’s random movements.

    Anyway, batnv, you’re posting in the wrong thread.

  17. bi,

    “Yeah, who needs this “logic” and “facts” and “falsifiability” stuff?”

    You obviously don’t. !!

    The NIWA guy was just pushing the ‘official’ theory and nothing else. As I said, imho not convincing, I’ve heard it all before and don’t buy it.

    “Anyway, batnv, you’re posting in the wrong thread.”

    I disagree, we are talking about ‘cranks’ here aren’t we ?? Check what this post is filed under.

  18. So batnv, your logic is really convincing. Just because you say you are right (still providing no evidence to back your claim) you must be.

    You say that the IPPC is wrong and this must be true, just because you say it is (still no evidence to back your claim).

    “Sorry not sure where your going with this one. Don’t we have records of climate data going way back past 150 years ???”

    You don’t understand that’s why. I said scientific research. Your lack of understanding is clearly showing here. Let me explain (bet you haven’t even heard these names though, try goggling them, let your so-called research expand itself from just the NZCSC website)

    In the 1860’s, John Tyndall began to suggest that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. Then in 1896, Svante Arrhenius proposed a ‘theory’ (yes, this word does crop up again, but you seem not to know the difference between the layperson understanding of the word and the scientist understanding of it) called the ‘greenhouse effect’. This theory is well understood and even expected by your friends at the NZCSC.

    So yes, scientific research for around 150 years. Look batnv, you clearly have done little research. You make claims that you cannot back up. You make claims about me, but have no idea (you see, I have actually done extensive research). You are truly sad.

    “Ah…no I don’t actually. Expert BS artists maybe ?” No actually, maybe you have no clue. Go on.. lets see your rebuttal, let me help, start with.. “no you are wrong, I am right, just cos I say so”

    Who really needs evidence, eh?

  19. Tushara, I think it is you who doesn’t understand as you are jumpimg to conclusions about what I did and did not say.

    Wow Tushara your scientific knowledge astounds me. You actually know what the ‘Greenhouse’ effect is. Congratulations my intelligent foe.

    Actually many years of research Tushara and the IPCC can have as many so called ‘experts’ as they want but when push comes to shove the bottom line is that the IPCC IS a political body with government appointed members who imho are clearly trying their best to hoodwink the masses with their dodgy computer models expecting us to believe that they are able to forecast the climate into the next century when they can’t even predict the weather a week ahead. But hey, I suppose some of us have to be down there with Dubya.

    As for providing evidence, look for yourself, it is out there. I am not your lacky. Besides with the volume available, where would one start. Of course the same would apply for you also no doubt.

    And I’m still waiting for that list I asked you for.

    Fan, With a such an exhaustive vocabularly you are to be commended. You have surely outdone yourself. I just dying to see what you manage to accomplish next time.

  20. “…are clearly trying their best to hoodwink the masses with their dodgy computer models expecting us to believe that they are able to forecast the climate into the next century when they can’t even predict the weather a week ahead.”

    Ahahaha! Level III Junior Goracle!

  21. batnv, you are starting to sound ridiculous with your pointless babble.

    You claim the IPPC is wrong, even with the actual scientific peer-reviewed evidence to back them up.

    I bet you have not even looked at the report, you just repeat the same old skeptic line.

    So, what in the report is wrong? Name something, maybe you can even look up a climate skpetic site to help you out.

    So you still believe that you don’t have to provide any evidence, do you?

    You are going around in circles and bring nothing to the table. I think it is great that people like you exist. If this is the best argument you have, then you are really deluded and sad.

    “Tushara, I think it is you who doesn’t understand as you are jumpimg to conclusions about what I did and did not say.”

    No, it is you that have no idea of what you have said, I just correct your feeble attempts at putting up a (lacking any evidence) argument.

    Once again, please provide some evidence next time you respond, as I will not repsond to someone that cannot even put up a decent argument.

  22. Tushara

    “You claim the IPPC is wrong, even with the actual scientific peer-reviewed evidence to back them up.”

    So by your feeble minded reasoning, because the IPCC report is peer reviewed it must be so. And you suggest I’m sounding ridiculous.

    Unfortunately the world is the way it is today because of the simple mindedness of people like yourself who believe goverments are good, they wouldn’t lie to us, they only want to do what is best for us.

    The data for the last report is old and there has been a lot of new data since that was compiled. And now they evemn admit warming to be put on hold for at least the next decade but hey don’t worry it will be back.

    “You are going around in circles and bring nothing to the table.”

    Ditto….

    “I think it is great that people like you exist.”

    I think it is a shame that people like you
    exist.

    “I will not repsond to someone that cannot even put up a decent argument.”

    Suits me as I was tiring of your lack lusture attempt at intelligence.

    PS> Still no troll list !! No suprise there.

  23. “And now they evemn admit warming to be put on hold for at least the next decade”

    One scientific report has and the authors still believe in AGW. Please don’t cherry pick. Please, you are a fool. I bet you haven’t even read that paper, where as I have. Fun that.

    I really don’t care what sites you look at, but you are a troll on this one.

    Now I have answered your pathetic question, answer mine. Have you even looked at a single peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change? No?!?!? Thought so.

    Do you even understand that question? Can you tell the difference between a peer-review scientific paper and a newspaper article? No?!??!? Thought so.

    I think Hemi meant Level 1 Baby Goracle. At least other skpetics can put a decent arugment. You sad little man.

  24. To add,

    That study you mentioned (Kennlyside, et al, 2008) states:

    “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming”

    So the one study you mention (which is not included in the latest IPCC report) concludes that AGW is real. This study has also come into question.

    You have no leg to stand on, please give it up.

  25. Sorry Gareth. I will.

    Guess I got offend with batnv picking on Cindy, who is really lovely. I met her a couple years ago at a conference. She might be a scientist, but still, who cares, she understands that climate scientist know more about cliamte science than the general public :). From now on, I will ignore batnv.

  26. Bat: I and the other flatearthers are with you. It IS a conspiracy. The politicians have been conspiring with the scientists against those that cause supposed global warming for decades now. They want to do away with big business. They want to destroy the economy.

    We are looking for friends like you, Bat, so that we can work together to fight all such conspiracies cooked up by politicians and scientists. Like the round earth thing.

    I think we should get that man from the Newstalk ZB Scientific Research Unit – what’s his name? Layman Smith I think – to work with us.

    he is our man.

    in solidarity
    Nathaniel Pipeblower

    ps Newstalk ZB does have a scientific research unit doesn’t it?

  27. You know what nathanial pipeblower, climate skeptics have convinced me… AGW is a lie. I have noticed that rather than getting warmer, over the last few months, it has been getting cooler in New Zealand. I think we must be heading into an ice age.

  28. Tush you are SO right – it is good to see some AGW believers finally seeing the light.

    I, too, am very cold today. I think, though that maybe it’s because NZ is so close to the Ice Wall. Ice ages are good for the Ice Wall – another reason why the Flat Earth Soc doesn’t want support this AGW rubbish.

  29. Pipe down, Pipeblower! This place is supposed to be a haven of sanity in a weird world, not a place of weirdness in a flat one.

    And what happens when the Ice Wall melts, that’s what I’d like to know?

  30. Ah, the atomic theory of bicycles! Now I understand…

    “The gross and net result of it is that people who spent most of their natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rocky roadsteads of this parish get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of their bicycle as a result of the interchanging of the atoms of each of them and you would be surprised at the number of people in these parts who nearly are half people and half bicycles.”

  31. Nathanial, Conspiracy no, control yes. And me thinks that instead of blowing, as in your blow hard babble above, you have been sucking too much.

    You haven’t by chance been loading your pipe up with some of Gareth’s hallucinogenic truffles have you ??

    Maybe you lot here could do your bit for AGW by emmigrating to England, you have to swim though unless you are going to purchase your carbon offsets, and receive your personal carbon ration card.

    Thanks in advance.

  32. Conspiracy theory? What conspiracy theory?

    No, there’s no conspiracy theory. Fred Singer talked about Third World kleptocrats trying to resurrect the New International Economic Order (NIEO), but it’s not a conspiracy theory. Monckton talked about Gore having ‘political and financial relations’ with James Hansen, but that’s not a conspiracy theory.

    There’s no conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorizing never happened. This never happened. Look, I’m waving my penguin flippers frantically! You didn’t see anything!

    — bi, International Journal of Inactivism

  33. “…trying their best to hoodwink the masses with their dodgy computer models expecting us to believe that they are able to forecast the climate into the next century when they can’t even predict the weather a week ahead.”

    As I was reading this thread, I thought it was just a matter of time before batnv would pull that tired old long-refuted line out. Well, I wasn’t disappointed.

Leave a Reply