|
Post by tobyglyn on Jul 17, 2009 1:35:48 GMT
Sydney Morning Herald has a refreshingly neutral bit on Fielding's fruitless attempts to arrange a meeting with Gore. "Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial vote in the emissions trading debate, had been trying to pin down the former US vice-president to explain one of his key climate change concerns. But Mr Gore only managed to find time for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd during his flying visit to Australia this week. Having offered to meet him at any time and fly to wherever he was, Senator Fielding said it was ridiculous the 2007 Nobel Prize winner didn't have five minutes to spare. "He was aware of how important my vote was ... but obviously he felt more comfortable running to someone - our prime minister - who actually supports and believes in what's he doing," he told Fairfax Radio Network on Friday." news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gore-ran-away-from-my-queries-fielding-20090717-dnkg.html
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jul 19, 2009 22:34:18 GMT
The real reason I’ll fight in the Senate on climate change www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-real-reason-ill-fight-in-the-senate-on-climate-change?from=news.com.auI have written to every senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question - what is driving climate change? If they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for a CPRS. This decision is the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines. I call on the government to answer my question with a straight answer. If they’re not prepared to do so, I’m happy to fight the lone battle in the senate until those senators who are honest with themselves break party lines.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 19, 2009 23:37:59 GMT
Here's the answers Fielding should have been given. Fielding's questions are given first, then the answer to them. I will avoid going into why 15 years is a bit too short anyway. Fielding's graph: Fielding: over the last 15 years ... global temperatures had remained steadyResponse: This claim is incorrect. The OLS of the temperature data plotted on the graph shows a 0.15C increase over that 15 year period. Fielding: it appeared as though carbon dioxide emissions were not driving climate changeResponse: Appearances can be deceiving. We've already seen that simply eyeballing the graph can cause someon to miss the 0.15C increase in temperature over this period. Of this 0.15C change, the graph cannot tell us how much is due to co2, so the conclusion that carbon dioxide has not driven this change based on this graph is unjustifed. Fielding: It is important to point out that the IPCC had predicted in their models that there would be a direct correlation between increasing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperaturesResponse: The graph is compatible with that. Both co2 rise and temperature rise. Fielding: However, if you look at the graph it is obvious to everyone that this correlation simply does not existResponse: Again, simply eyeballing the graph can lead to a false conclusion. For example here's the same data but I've scaled the co2 axis down: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/scale:0.01/offset:-3.4Now the apparent correlation is much better. Some questions I recommend Fielding take back to the skeptics he recieved his graph from. It would be interesting to see what answers he would get or whether he encounters a "wall of silence" 1) With the full hadcrut3 record available, why does your graph start specifically in 1995: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:19952) The co2 and temperature axis scales imply 6C warming from a doubling of co2, which is about double what the IPCC reports as the most likely sensitivity. Would it not have been better to set the scales to represent the most likely case rather than double that?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 20, 2009 10:55:54 GMT
socold writes "Here's the answers Fielding should have been given."
Socold’s comments are interesting, and illustrate rather vividly the difficulty of discussing real science on this sort, or any sort, of blog. Unfortunately, from what I can gather, Steve Fielding, in Australia is regarded as a loose cannon and a political light weight; unlikely to get a second term as a Senator.
Trying to discuss science in this sort of forum is quite useless, if your aim is to get to the truth. It is just too easy to ignore what others say, and just stick to worn out phrases. Personally, I use this sort of forum to try and clear my own thoughts, by discussions with the opposition. The cut and thrust of debate, cross-examination, etc are simply absent. Fielding tried to discuss his questions with some of the best in the world. Dr. Ardy at the White House, and Al Gore for example. None of these people treated him seriously.
However, Penny Wong could not really avoid a proper scientific discussion. She chose to present the case, Dr. Penny Sackett and Prof. Will Steffan. If you search Fielding’s home page, you can find all the details. These two avoided Socold’s arguments. I wonder why. I suspect there was a very good reason.
Fielding took into the meeting four skeptic heavyweights. On April 1st this year, Jennifer Marahosy had a April Fool’s joke on her web site. She said the UNFCCC had invited a delegation of skeptics to attend the Copenhagen conference in December, and the name she chose to head this fictional delegation was William Kinninmonth. If there was one person I would choose to be in my corner in a debate of AGW, it would be Bill Kinninmonth. Bill was present when Sackett and Steffan gave their presentation.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Sackett and Steffan had attempted to use Socold’s argument, they would have been, scientifically, torn to shreds. In this sort of debate, it is better to keep one’s mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, rather than opening it and proving it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 20, 2009 13:29:30 GMT
Fielding's arguments were based on conclusions his graph didn't show. It's only right to point that out and continue no further until perhaps he returns with better arguments that are consistant with the data.
That's what I did.
You see I realize something that perhaps Wong doesn't. Fielding is not engaging in honest scientific enquiry, but is just playing a poliical game with his questions. How do I know this? Because He already had access to the answers. I see names such as Bob Carter and David Evans on his team, seasoned PR skeptics, who undoubtably knew what Wong's response would be.
Wong is perhaps less experienced at dealing with these kind of arguments than me. For example, realizing they were playing a game, I also took time to throw some awkward questions back at them. No free lunch. If they want to play a PR game they can take hits from it.
Further investigation on my part suggests that Fielding didn't present that graph to Minister Wong. He presented a similar graph starting in 1998.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 20, 2009 14:26:45 GMT
socold writes "Wong is perhaps less experienced at dealing with these kind of arguments than me"
There is something awfully fishy about what you write, Socold. Arguably, Fielding, along with Xenophon, hold the two key votes in the Australian Senate, which could defeat to Rudd government. I say, "arguably", because obviously the opposition Nationals could make the crossbencher's votes irrelevant, if they chose to. However, if the vote goes as expected, Wong needed to get Fielding's vote on the Rudd government's side. She needed all the help she could get, and apparently for her, failed to get you as a consultant.
Why Wong failed to produce different arguments from what was presented, I have no idea. But the stakes could not be much higher. If the ETS legislation is defeated in the Senate this August, the Rudd government has 3 months to get modified legislation through both Houses of Parliament. If this fails, Australia is heading for an unusual election of both chambers at the same time.
I simply dont believe that Sackett and Steffan were unaware of your arguments. They chose not to present them. Why, we can only speculate.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2009 15:13:25 GMT
Not being familiar with the political situation in Australia, there are two ways to deal with a "loose cannon" politician. You either ridicule them or play it straight. Playing it straight, you rarely win them over, but ridiculing them can lose you ground with other people. Wong's response looks like the "play it straight" line - I wouldn't doubt that she knows his game, but sometimes it's just better to be polite. Immediately, of course, Fielding organises his "independent due diligence" report by the likes Bob Carter which I suppose might allow some people an excuse to continue fooling themselves.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 20, 2009 16:36:31 GMT
Jim you are taking Fielding's motives at face value just as I may have incorrectly taken Wong's at face value. Fielding says he was just looking for the answers on climate change. I don't believe that. I think he already decided before he asked the questions.
Why? Well for one thing he asked Wong for answers which he already had access to and second he asked those questions very publically. Both are unnecessary if he was genuinely seeking answers to help him decide. But both are necessary if he has already decided his position on the matter and is simply generating propaganda for it.
Maybe Steve is right and Wong realizes this too but has decided to handle it in a political fashion. In fact that makes more sense to me. So probably both of them are not being sincere and are manipulating the exchange without saying what they really think about it, etc.
You know what's sad about this? I don't know who Fielding and Wong actually are and I wonder then why I am even bothering to analyze this.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 20, 2009 16:51:03 GMT
You know what's sad about this? I don't know who Fielding and Wong actually are and I wonder then why I am even bothering to analyze this. Still waiting for that location in the universe where turtles rule Socold. Got an analysis on that yet? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 30, 2009 11:23:05 GMT
There is an interesting piece (to me) on Senator Fileding's home site. www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/think_before_you_vote_fielding/Fielding seems to be offering a scientific briefing by Bob Carter to all other Senators on August 12th, one day before the Senate is due to vote on ETS. I wonder how many people will show up. Maybe Kiwi can comment.
|
|