Breaking News. ABC audience told Alan Jones is wrong on climate change!

Fancy that!. As reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Is Q&A trolling Ita (I am concerned about balance) Buttrose?

On the brighter side Jo for calamari lovers Nova reports that squid will thrive as the oceans turn acidic.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Breaking News. ABC audience told Alan Jones is wrong on climate change!

  1. stackja

    AJ interviewed Swedish sceptic this morning.

  2. Rex Mango

    I was studying physics at Uni thirty years ago. My tutor told me there was no future in pure science like physics, as you would only end up working for defence (DSTO), or becoming an academic like him. This prior to the great climate science boom in careers. Alan Jones was right too.

  3. Up The Workers!

    That’s no rose up Ita’s Butt – that is the $1.3Billion p.a. A.L.P.B.C. manure farm.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    It’s amusing that Dr Karoly is accusing Alan Jones. Karoly is notorious for torturing data, monstering sceptical scientists and reacting like a prima donna.

    So sensitive is he that I’d be almost convinced he knows the climate data does not back his position.

  5. mh

    Ita Buttrose, time now for you to accept that the ABC is a feral, leftist, political player that needs gutting.

    Ita, outline the steps that you will be taking to destroy the rancid culture at our national broadcaster.

  6. Mother Lode

    I had a quick look at the link MSNBC (Methodical Sciences? Not a Bloody Clue).

    David Karoly. The man is very much financially invested in Climate Change. If he was a a guy who had once (in the past) done some work for an oil company they would consider him to be hopelessly compromised for eternity, while a man who currently benefits, and will be hoping for further benefit yet, is treated as an unimpeachable seer of truth.

    Don’t get me wrong. Karoly’s involvement in Climate Change bodies does not mean he is lying. It does not mean he is wrong. (Science does that.) In fact you would expect his belief in AGW/CC/BTQI would be the reason he is involved in Climate Change circle jerks. Similarly a scientist who works for an oil company would be doing so because they believed it was not a threat to the species.

    I just wish the pond-scum grazing crustacea in the Q&A audience had sufficient discernment to recognise the same possible conflict of interest for the like of Karoly as they the see as undeniable conflicts of interest on the part of sceptics.

    But, of course, then they would not be in a Q&A audience.

  7. Herodotus

    It has been some time since I listened to ABC radio AM, but today’s topical checklist included:
    1. Nasty western nations including Australia foisting plastic rubbish on Indonesia.
    2. CSIRO predicts future to 2060: we will be fine if we use less energy, less cars, reduce emissions and use more “technology”, otherwise our future will be grim.
    3. First People update: in order to get them mentioned and repeat how long ago they arrived, a story is dredged up about the route they took to arrive here.

    It certainly reminds one why it’s so missable.

  8. Mother Lode

    Oh, and at the end of the article, the rather tiresome appeal “If your car breaks down, you don’t take it to a butcher but to a mechanic!”

    If the butcher has shown commonsense before and been careful to qualify which things he says are beyond his first hand experience and may be in error, and the mechanic has never actually repaired a car but every time declares a new problem that you have to pay for (and in his free time he flies off to cocktail parties in Cancun and he drives his own car in a manner he tells everyone else not to), then I would ask the butcher for pointers.

    You don’t need to be a scientist to recognise that a scientist whose predictions don’t turn out is not much of a scientist. Similarly you do not need to be a doctor to realise that a doctor does not make people better is a bad doctor.

    And you don’t have to be a journalist to identify a hack.

  9. Jonesy

    OK, what part of what Alan is saying is wrong…the 3.4% attributable to humans or the 1.8% of that 3.4% attributable to us Aussies? The math is simple. It even sounds less when you consider the 23% cut we are signing up to equats to 0.064ppm CO2. One wonders if thats getting below the limit if reading. Billions if dollars cut from our economy for almost unreadable diference in concentration.

  10. Rex Mango

    Wouldn’t Jo Nova have been a great guest on the Q&A science panel?

  11. Jonesy

    Ooops, silly me! That concentration reduction should read 0.0056ppm

  12. Jonesy

    414.83ppm x 0.034= 14.10422ppm
    14.10422 x 0.018 = 0.25387596ppm
    0.25387596 x 0.23 = 0.05839ppm

    Dooohh! There you go, Jonesy. Do it again!

  13. nb

    Please, let’s have advertisements on the ABC!

  14. Leo G

    Please, let’s have advertisements on the ABC!

    Let’s have an ABC that isn’t an advertisement for cultural Marxism.

  15. tombell

    did any one seriously think Ita would make an IoTA of difference?

  16. Old School Conservative

    So Professor Van Kranendonk likens Alan Jones to a butcher for having “an opinion” on climate change – in the same week as Al Gore is paid mega bucks by Queensland taxpayers to have an opinion on climate change.

    Funny that Tony Jones didn’t point that out last night.

  17. a happy little debunker

    First People update: in order to get them mentioned and repeat how long ago they arrived, a story is dredged up about the route they took to arrive here

    Just imagine the SJW outrage if we demanded newly arrived immigrants & asylum seekers to pay us an annual ‘special’ levy to compensate us into perpetuity!

  18. David Bidstrup

    Why anyone would waste electrons to to watch Q and A is beyond me.

  19. John64

    One hundred years ago the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere that was CO2 was 7/20,000.

    Today, after mankind has done its best to pump out as much CO2 as possible over the past Century, it has risen to 8/20,000.

    This is irrefutable and every time I point it out to a leftist I just get a blank stare.

  20. Rafe Champion

    did any one seriously think Ita would make an IoTA of difference?

    Sorry, only joking:)

  21. stackja

    Again Orwell supposedly based the ministry of truth on the BBC. ABC supposedly based on BBC. ABC ‘truth’ as long since leftists took over.

  22. Craig Sargent

    The oceans are becoming more neutral, not acidic

  23. Don’t get me wrong. Karoly’s involvement in Climate Change bodies does not mean he is lying. It does not mean he is wrong. (Science does that.)

    Karoly is the bloke at Melbourne University who runs the Climate Model.
    So he has been wrong and been wrong from the start.
    He also put out a paper about how climate change was drying out the Murray Darling system and was promptly shown to be wrong (willfully so actually) by Lockhart et al in another paper studying the same phenom.

    So Karoly has been both wrong and outed as a liar.
    IMHO Karoly and a couple of others at the BoM are the chief liars, data manipulators and fraudsters of AGW in Australia.
    Grab all of their communications to bust this thing wide open.

  24. Iva Right

    Does anyone apart from leftoid nitwits actually watch Q & A or the ABC ‘science programs’ in general for that matter? They are simply preaching to the already converted. Means nothing in the real world where the silent majority exist.

  25. The BigBlueCat

    I was concerned that the Q&A panel did not have one, genuine, well-informed climate sceptic on hand to provide a counter-point to the Q&A echo-chamber. Tony Jones (aka Snowcone) is a well-known beneficiary of AGW income, haveing been on the pro-AGW speaking circuit for a while now. As a “moderator” on Q&A last night he was hardly impartial.

    That no dissenting view was espoused by a panellist last night is no surprise, but Ita needs to get off her substantial derriere and make some serious changes at “their” ABC so it become ours as well.

  26. Kneel

    Karoly: “I am a climate scientist and Alan Jones is wrong.”

    The oldest scientific society in existence is The Royal Society – specifically convened to offer scientific advice to politicians. Its motto translates to approximately “Don’t take anyone’s word for it”. In other words, “Where’s the evidence?”.
    So, Karoly, instead of your ridiculous ad hom attack on one of the “plebs” of climate science, how about some evidence, hmmm? Why should I believe when it should be simple enough to prove it to me – according to you, we could be 90+% sure 30 years ago, surely if, as you say, the evidence has only been increasing, there should be enough to convince even the most rabid skeptic. Instead, we get… <crickets>

    Here’s a couple of facts that throw a spanner into your paradigm:
    * convection and advection cool more efficiently than radiation
    * evaporation of water cools more efficiently than convection/advection
    * we have no long term data on convection, advection, evaporation or cloud cover
    Even a 1% change in cloud cover (which may or may not have happened – we can’t know because we don’t have the data!) would be sufficient to be the “cause” of recent “global warming” (such as it is).

  27. The BigBlueCat

    Jonesy
    #3045529, posted on June 18, 2019 at 8:46 am
    OK, what part of what Alan is saying is wrong…the 3.4% attributable to humans or the 1.8% of that 3.4% attributable to us Aussies? The math is simple. It even sounds less when you consider the 23% cut we are signing up to equats to 0.064ppm CO2. One wonders if thats getting below the limit if reading. Billions if dollars cut from our economy for almost unreadable diference in concentration.

    Given that the preponderance of industrialisation occurred in Europe and North Ameria in the 19th and 20th centuries, surely the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to (say) 350ppm is largely due to non-Australian industrial activities. We heard last night fro Karoly that Alan Jones was wrong, and he cited the increase from 280ppm … but clearly the increase cannot be attributed to Australian activities, and I doubt that Australian anthropogenic activities since the early 19th-century amount to the 3.4% often quoted.

    But the 3.4% represents Australia’s current output – if China, India, USA, et al even maintained their CO2 output, reducing Australia’s CO2 by 40% would do diddly to the current 420ppm. If we are to follow the CAGW alarmists logic, those who contributed to the increase should contribute to the solution. Somehow Australia has to take the lead – for the life of me I don’t know why, if we aren’t a significant cause of “the problem”.

    What I am saying is that even though Karoly pointed to deficiencies in Alan Jones’ numbers, his own view is seriously flawed if we are to take the historical changes in CO2 concentration into account. Our “responsibility” to the international community is to achieve the Paris Accord targets – and even that is generous of us.

    We also heard last night the old “per capita” chestnut … I bet the one who said it hasn’t reduced their CO2 footprint by 40% – like most alarmists, they are demanding the gummint act on their say-so rather than leading by example (Zali Steggal take notice). Did they fly in an electric aeroplane to get to Q&A? Catch an electric taxi? Do they drive an electric car? Solar panels on their roof? A storage battery in their garage? Energy supplied by a non-fossil fuel source to charge their car?? I suggest that before looking to others, look at yourself first!

    But of course the problem with current renewables technology is that they are creating another environmental disaster – disposal of solar panels and storage batteries that no longer work need to go somewhere, and without recycling facilities that means the local tip!

  28. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Karoly: “I am a climate scientist and Alan Jones is wrong.”
    He explained why.
    Everyone on this program explained why.

    Why? Unfortunately you just had to be there, as this journalist refuses to repeat the panel’s oh-so-devastating explanation. The science is so settled that science has lay down for a nap.

    Also, Alan Jones was wrong about carbon fluxes, and I did explain why.

  29. Herodotus

    Karoly was also the main man for Tony Jones and the ABC when they did the concerted takedown of “The great global warming swindle” doco.
    Apart from doing hit jobs on the doco and all those who tried to speak sense about climate on the night (including the late Bob Carter) they cut about 40 minutes of the doco while saying they showed the whole thing.

  30. Colonel Crispin Berka

    I guess Karoly was on this episode because it was a safe space.
    In the past he’s been unable to defend his views when challenged by other scientists.
    e.g. http://www.nzclimatescience.org.nz/blog/australian%20alarmist%20academic%20challenged%20to%20justify%20his%20dagw%20claims

  31. egg_

    Karoly: “I am a climate scientist and Alan Jones is wrong.”

    “Hide the decline”.

  32. Mother Lode

    So Karoly has been both wrong and outed as a liar.

    My point was that merely being involved in Climate Change in itself does not make him a liar or wrong.

    Nobody being affiliated with a a group is thereby made wrong, whether it is a geologist that worked for an oil company or someone who works in some progressive think tank.The proof of their error is in what they do and say.

  33. John A

    Also, Alan Jones was wrong about carbon fluxes, and I did explain why.

    OK, Colonel, but you haven’t helped much.

    If the natural fluxes in and out are balanced then the human contribution represents the increase from 280 to 350ppm.

    So it’s 3% of 1.3% of 70ppm = 0.0000027% effective.

    I suggest that is below the error detection level of the populace and probably of a lot of the instruments soo.

  34. gowest

    Congrats to Q&A and the ABC for making Alan Jones more popular then ever….

  35. Squirrel

    “Is Q&A trolling Ita (I am concerned about balance) Buttrose?”

    It’s not just the Monday night love-in, there’s been a notable doubling-down across the ABC’s offerings – more to do with the nightmare election outcome, than with Ita, I would guess.

  36. Jonesy

    TheBigBlueCat…mate, Australia’s part is the 1.8% of the 3.4%.

  37. faceache

    John64
    #3045603, posted on June 18, 2019 at 10:23 am
    One hundred years ago the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere that was CO2 was 7/20,000.

    Today, after mankind has done its best to pump out as much CO2 as possible over the past Century, it has risen to 8/20,000.

    This is irrefutable and every time I point it out to a leftist I just get a blank stare.

    I gave my crazy lefty daughter in law those figures this morning. I could see the dawning in her eyes. The stare wasn’t blank.

  38. The BigBlueCat

    Jonesy
    #3045956, posted on June 18, 2019 at 6:48 pm
    TheBigBlueCat…mate, Australia’s part is the 1.8% of the 3.4%.

    I get that, but likewise how much of the 400 or so ppm is Australia really responsible for? It’s the flux discussion that appears above, but looking at the historical flux sources and whether or not Australia really is a key culprit. Since the 19th century, there has been a net contribution to atmospheric CO2, but that means there’s CO2 going in, and CO2 coming out. Most of that would be European and North American sources, and more lately Asian, with Australia being a relative latecomer to significant CO2 net contribution.

    My questions are:

    1. Where is the net contribution occurring?
    2. When has this occurred?
    3. What has Australia’s role been in contributing to this flux?
    4. Is CO2 driving climate change, or is climate change driving CO2?
    4. Is there a real problem that requires solving?
    5. How much should Australia participate in solving the “problem”?
    6. Can we (in Australia) really do anything about it anyway?

    Climate Scientist Karoly is too busy telling Alan Jones that he’s wrong to even consider these questions, let alone understand his own maths is off kilter because he hasn’t fully explored how we’ve got to 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (other than “humans”). Science is about observation and conclusion through testing and analysis, not about consensus. It took 1 scientist to prove the earth is not flat when the scientific “consensus” said it was.

    Climate changes – that is widely accepted. There is still much scientific debate about whether CO2 is the cause.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.