Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Send Topic Print
UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. (Read 10299 times)
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Feb 23rd, 2013 at 10:50am
 
Quote:
The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care.



As The Australian claims sea level rise is not linked to global warming, the world’s most influential climate scientist has called on “sane and rational voices” to speak out and correct the record.

More than 250 scientists have gathered in Hobart today for a summit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate science body. The Oz marked the summit’s opening with a front-page “exclusive” story which claimed there was “no link” between sea level rises and global warming.

In a telephone interview, Crikey asked the long-term chair of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri, in Tasmania for the summit, about the story.

“What is particularly important is that sane and rational voices must respond to these questions and this scepticism, and I think that should get adequate currency,” said Pachauri, who in 2007 accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC. “Then people can make up their minds on their own.”

He called on the media to take responsibility for the stories they run. “Unfortunately in several parts of the world, the media gives disproportionate coverage to those who take a contrarian view, even if they represent a very very small percentage of either the scientific consensus or public opinion. They get almost equal billing, and to my mind that seems a little unfair,” he said.

Pachauri said climate change was particularly serious for Australia: ”From the looks of it, Australia is very very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, you have droughts, you have heat waves. Sea level rise could be a serious problem in some parts of the country. So Australia undoubtedly is very vulnerable, perhaps more so than several other places in the world.”

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”.

But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.

“So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.

While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

Despite the persistence of scepticism, Pachauri was upbeat about global acceptance of the science of human-induced climate change. He thought some prominent sceptics were changing their minds: “I hope that will be the case once they see all the compelling scientific evidence, in this country and in other parts of the world.”

The public tended to respond slowly to difficult realities, he says, so time was needed to change attitudes “Business-as-usual has a very strong force behind it, and therefore to move away from business-as-usual takes time, takes effort, and I imagine you’ll see signs of change in the near future,” he said.

The IPCC chief was confident the world was getting the message on climate change: “I think the extent of awareness is growing very rapidly … I feel quite optimistic about the way things are going”.

Pachauri praised Australia’s carbon price, saying the IPCC had found a price on carbon was one of the most effective ways of encouraging low-carbon technology. “I think what Australia has done has to be commended and I hope other parts of the world will also see something similar being done,” he said. He also called on governments to remove subsidies on fossil fuels because they acted as a deterrent to alternative sources of energy.


It's tragic that certain sections in the media are using his own words to propagate unfounded skepticism.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #1 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:04am
 
Rajendra Pachauri fronts a scientific body which has been set the task of assessing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. This body has found that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations” (GHG refers to greenhouse gas). The IPCC defines “very likely” as over 90% certainty.

He, like the vast bulk of climate scientists, reads very little into the statistical pause that only exists if you cherry pick the El Niño fuelled outlier of 1998. Yet the same dill he criticised for misrepresenting a scientific paper on rising sea levels is now doing his best to misrepresent his views on anthropogenic global warming.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
FriYAY
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7395
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #2 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:21am
 
250 of 'em.

The carbon foot print for all these panels, summits etc must be massive.

Shocked Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #3 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am
 
There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #4 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:34am
 
So here comes MOTR-mouth to defend the indefensible. Of course, you ahd to wait for someone else to give you your script before commenting.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #5 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:37am
 
progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am:
There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.


What are you talking about, progs. What was then an exceptionally hot outlier is now the norm. Yes you can construct a 17 year statistical pause, no one is disputing that.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #6 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am
 
Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true.

So... do you agree with him or not??

BTW thats a yes or no answer
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #7 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:40am
 
MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:37am:
progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am:
There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.


What are you talking about, progs. What was then an exceptionally hot outlier is now the norm. Yes you can construct a 17 year statistical pause, no one is disputing that.


a 17year pause is not an outlier. in fact, it is by the ACC community's OWN STANDARDS, what is considered to constitute an undeniable pause in GW.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #8 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:42am
 
MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:37am:
progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am:
There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.


What are you talking about, progs. What was then an exceptionally hot outlier is now the norm. Yes you can construct a 17 year statistical pause, no one is disputing that.

I did not make up the model rule time period. I did not make the temperature hit the model rule of 15 - 17 years.

You cant change the model rule just because the rule got a hit and the rule does not state only if cooler. It states 'if no wrming trend' for that time period.

AGW lives off the models. The models have failed in every respect. Every.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #9 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am
 
What rule, progs?
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #10 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:49am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am:
Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true.

So... do you agree with him or not??

BTW thats a yes or no answer


I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out.

...

...
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #11 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:51am
 
MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am:
What rule, progs?


For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #12 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:53am
 
MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:49am:
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am:
Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true.

So... do you agree with him or not??

BTW thats a yes or no answer


I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif


good greif motr... what exactly does it take to get thru to you? its not about getting a convenient starting point. Just take today and look back 17 years!!

the IPCC have stated that there is as 17 year pause. Why cant you? you constantly demand that we accept their word as the final say so on climate but here you are rejecting their own gospel? How is that working out?
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #13 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:54am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:51am:
MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am:
What rule, progs?


For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.


Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6646
Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #14 - Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:57am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:53am:
MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:49am:
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am:
Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true.

So... do you agree with him or not??

BTW thats a yes or no answer


I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif


good greif motr... what exactly does it take to get thru to you? its not about getting a convenient starting point. Just take today and look back 17 years!!

the IPCC have stated that there is as 17 year pause. Why cant you? you constantly demand that we accept their word as the final say so on climate but here you are rejecting their own gospel? How is that working out?


Why don't you go back twenty years or 15 years.

...
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Send Topic Print