Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Roger Pielke Jr thinks that if it is his paper, at least, and if the journal is Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) you should publish! I think that claim strains credulity.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
"But – and this is the disturbing part – the judge goes on to find (in par 424):
"Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."
Defamation law doesn't require fair comment to be reasonable, as we've seen. It doesn't require it to be 'in good faith'. But the exemptions listed in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, including fair comment, only apply to "anything said or done reasonably and in good faith".
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
In his well known book, "Heaven and Earth", Ian Plimer has claimed, "[M]assive volcanic erruptions (e.g. Mount Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a year's human CO2 emissions in a few days." (Heaven and Earth, p. 472).
1) Is this claim true or false?
2) How do you know?
3) Explain a simple test which would establish almost certainly whether the claim is true or false, and carry it out?
Comments will be sent to moderation and published after one week to avoid cribbing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
These calls represented the ideal time for anyone to argue for enhanced flood mitigation at Wivenhoe. Those such as Andrew Dragun, who now believes that water should have been released to prevent the risk of flooding, said nothing. He thought it was far more important to attack the Federal Governments Murray Darling Basin Scheme. Hedley Thomas, who has run so hard on this story for the Australian, ignored the story. And Michael O'Brien, the engineer who has so publicly condemned the dam operators was not to be heard. Their wisdom, it appears, is exclusively 20-20 hindsight.
Let's put this in context.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
In this post I will be returning again to the size of the Brisbane Flood. The reason for discussing these issues again is that I have some new and interesting information, and also because these issues continue to be revisited by people who are trying to drum up a witch hunt against either the dam operators or the state government (or both).
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
It has also allowed AGW deniers to start playing there predictable, but disappointing game of "blame the victims". The floods, we are told, was only so bad because because of inadequate mitigation, poorly managed. And only a problem at all because fools built houses on flood plains. Oh, and above all else, the flood did not exceed what commonly occurs due to natural variability.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Brave New Climate - Qld Floods Highlight the cost of climate extremes (Link added 14/1)
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Until recently, I have been an active participant in the Climate Clash blog maintained Dr Ed Berry. I had withdrawn from that site, in part because of the inconsistent moderation by Dr Berry which, in practise, gave open slather to opponents of AGW to insult both pro-AGW participants on the board, and noted defenders of AGW, both academic and in the blogosphere.
Considering the former argument first, he writes:
"The first prediction of AGW to fail, is that a 20% increase in CO2 is expected to cause an increase in the average global temperature of about 0.8°C. Detecting trends in satellite data is difficult for many reasons. Year to year differences can exceed 1°C, global seasonal variability exceeds 3.5°C, hemispheric seasonal variability exceeds 12°C and discontinuities arise as the data from different satellites is merged, however; a 25 year trend this large should be evident and it's not."