Screaming loony climate conspiracists
(I will not dignify them as “sceptic”) are famous for
cherry-picking data, but we forget that they also cherry pick people.
Let one phrase out of a hundred sound like a prediction you can prove
wrong, and they'll roll it out to prove you were wrong.
The SLCCs – pronounce it “slacks”
if you like – have been on and on and on
about the idea that Tim Flannery predicted unending drought forever
in
this interview with the ABC's Maxine McKew, which is the cherry-pick
of cherry-picks.
Hence
if Sydney gets a thunderstorm in March, you can guarantee that the
editorial cannon fodder that are proud to fight on behalf of rich
people that despise them will take it as proof that Flannery was
wrong.
To
save you from tl;dr, I'm going to parse the interview.
- Are weather patterns changing?
Flannery's
answer: changes to wind patterns and the tropics moving south have
changed rainfall in south-eastern Australia. He didn't say “every
year will be a drought year” in answering the first question.
Nothing he said answering McKew's first question is contradicted by
events since.
- Is it more severe in eastern Australia?
Flannery:
yes. “Something will need to change” to fill the Warragamba.
Something did change, a flip in the Southern Oscillation. Nothing he
said to McKew's second question is contradicted by events since.
- You can't be certain?
Flannery
agrees. He says he thinks
the science is pointing in the other direction. Nothing he said to
McKew's third question is contradicted by events since.
The
next question and answer are given verbatim with emphasis.
MAXINE
McKEW: So does that mean, really, we're faced with - if that's right
- back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
TIM
FLANNERY: Well, you can't
predict the future;
that's one of the things that you learn fairly early on, but if I
could just say, the
general patterns that
we're seeing in the global circulation models - and these are very
sophisticated computer tools, really, for looking at climate shift -
are saying the same sort of thing that we're actually seeing on the
ground. So when the models start confirming what you're observing on
the ground, then there's some fairly
strong basis for
believing that we're understanding what's causing these weather
shifts and these rainfall declines, and they
do seem to be of a
permanent nature. I don't think
it's just a cycle. I'd
love to be wrong, but I
think the science is pointing in the other direction.
So – every aspect of that answer was
qualified: Flannery didn't make an absolute prediction. He was doing
his job, trying to explain the science – including the uncertainty.
Nothing he said to McKew's fourth
question is contradicted by events since.
- It will continue, and cities will be thirsty?
Flannery said “that looks to
be the case”. Nothing
he said to McKew's fifth question is contradicted by events since.
- What's the worst-case?
Note:
this is asking not “what will happen?” but “what's the worst
that might happen?”
Flannery:
There are quite severe problems if
current trends continue.
Nothing he said to McKew's sixth question is contradicted by events
since.
- Is drought preparation worthwile?
Flannery:
Yes, “even if you think there's only a 10 per cent chance that this
rainfall deficit's going to continue for another few years”.
Nothing he said to McKew's seventh question is contradicted by events
since.
- What about Western Australia?
Flannery:
“Yet to be seen, yet to be determined”. Nothing he said to
McKew's eighth question is contradicted by events since.
- South Australia and Victoria?
Flannery:
Adelaide might have water quality problems. Melbourne is vulnerable
to water deficits. Nothing he said to McKew's ninth question is
contradicted by events since.
At
this point, the discussion diverts to power and away from drought.
Hang
on. In the nine questions about climate and drought, Tim Flannery
said absolutely nothing that has been contradicted by events.
In
other words, if your a slacker – a screaming loony climate
conspiracist – like say Chris Kenny, the only way you can say one
thunderstorm fits: “Don't think this is what Flannery meant when he
said "..Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with
water.."”
In
fact, if you think one thunderstorm disproves climate science, you're
unfit to comment. Really. It's like a movie advertiser citing the
word “unbelievable” in the advertisement, when the rest of the
phrase was “rubbish”.
No comments:
Post a Comment