Australian Weather Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Integrity - A reminder of a near extinct human quality

2 posters

Go down

Integrity - A reminder of a near extinct human quality Empty Integrity - A reminder of a near extinct human quality

Post  LatteLover Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:10 pm


Main Entry: in•teg•ri•ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
synonyms see: honesty

Some of you may ask, what ahs this to do with the climate? A fair question indeed. Well, too often do people consider themselves to be a person of character, or integrity, but sadly, actions speak louder than words. And I decided to use this example, which I will do into detail below, as a demonstration of what is now common place amongst those that "believe" in the AGW theory. I use quote marks because, whilst I am not a scientist, I used to think that science was about seeking out the truth through debate, research and fallibility. The word 'belief' is defined as:

Main Entry: be•lief
Pronunciation: \bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date: 12th century
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof .
synonyms see in addition opinion

If faced with evidence that challenges our belief, yet we still continue to hold our view regardless, we then start to hold a faith, not a belief.

Yesterday, I posted a comment questioning the AGW theory in this forum. I particularly questioned the professionalism and the integrity of David Jones - The Head of the National Climate Centre at the BOM. A government job, his salary paid by my taxes. It is within reason to expect that we, as the tax payer, have a right to question such a person.

It was not abusive, there was o personal attack - except direct questions regarding the specific comments David made. I even said that he had a right, as we all do, to his view.

Thankfully I kept a copy of my post, as it was (unsurprisingly) deleted with the following statement from David Jones:

This forum is for those who enjoy the weather. Many of us moved here because we tired of arguing with "skeptics" who have no interest in the weather, but rather use forums to promote political views. I've locked this topic.


This from the forum owner, Karl Jijnders (excerpts):

I am in no way affiliated with the BoM or any other organization, I am speak for no one but me. But seeing as I have put this place together with a group of enthusiasts to discuss weather and yes climate without the verbal bashings and lashings from the underground right and left parties.

And this from the same post:

I personally will not tolerate things on this forum being taken out of context for personal gain, people made to stand trial over and over again for they're occupation, and will not tolerate any form of abuse. Go elsewhere to behave that way.

So it is quite clear from your actions that whilst you like 'discussion', you will only allow your discussion on the basis that all agree with you.

And therein lies the problem. David Jones locks the thread that I posted so that no one could comment further. Karl makes a statement about personal gain, abuse, standing trail... Well - where in my post, did I commit such atrocities?

I thought the standing trail bit was priceless! He is in a public position after all. One wonders whether their stance on this would be more welcome in a country with somewhat less liberties?

So in the name of free speech I am cross posting this comment to the following blogs:

Andrew Bolt - currently rated in the top 100 largest blogs in the world.
Joanne Nova
Watts Up With That

I may decide to publish in the national press blogs too.

Luckily for free speech, another blogger has already posted about my deleted comment in Andrew's blog -

So I thought it important to post my original comment which this forum deleted, in Andrews comments section... that can be found here under the name.. David of St Kilda.

And, here's my original post:

David, I'd like to comment on a post you've made on this site that bothers me in a few ways especially given you are the current Head of the National Climate Centre over at the BOM.

I have huge respect for the BOM in general. I am a pilot and a yachty and rely on accurate short range forcasts provided by your organisation. Most of the time you're bang on! No one expects perfection, the future, is the future after all.

Having said that, in your post you say that you cannot comment on Andrew Bolt's work for professional reasons... then in the next sentence you say his work is rubbish? How is that not commenting? And, on what basis do you call it rubbish? Is it that you don't agree with him? or do you have contradicting data?

I'm confused, because this is an issue of great interest to me, so I check up on his work and to date, have not found any errors.

You mention that the climate will decide for itself whether the science is right - a refreshing comment! But isn't 15 years of no warming, and 7 years of cooling a reasonable start? Some might say, perhaps you too, that the past 10 years has been the hottest on record - that may be true, our records started 100 years ago (approx), so i'm not sure what that point is meant to prove except for a trivial tool to persuade the stupid..

You comment that this November was the hottest on record.. OK? Was it? So what? What record are you referring to? Empirical or Proxy records? Last week I was looking at BOM temperature records from 1890 for Australia broken down by state, and with all of them, the mean temperatures where horizontal. No increase, no decrease. How is that possible if this November was the all time warmest? How also, when other parts of the world and indeed, here in Australia we have had unusual cold spells which get described as isolated weather events, yet the warm days are evidence of climate change?

I remember when, in the late 70's, warm days were weather events and cold days were further proof of global cooling..!?

So we can refer to some IPCC graphs that indicate we are the hottest century on record, yet those graphs produced by the IPCC are now falling over like domino's - as soon as you look at the raw data, all of a sudden the crisis disappears! How could that be? I suppose the data hasn't been 'adjusted' - I'll give you that, but adjustments are based on theories, not facts. So the corrected data differs depending on who adjusts the numbers.. surely that isn't a finite way to conduct business, especially if nations are moving to change their way of life and economies over the results?

Now, apparently the satellites are telling us the November temps were high.. But only if Spencer doesn't adjust the numbers? For goodness sake. Raw data, is raw data. If two scientists cannot replicate a theory with the same data, then in my book its rubbish.

With all that said.. aren't you stating the obvious telling is the climate changes? Whether November was hottest on record or not is not important, what are you trying to prove? We know the climate changes.. And nowhere has Andrew Bolt said otherwise. I thought showing correlation to prove causation was forgotten about? I mean haven't we moved on?

I watched a guy fall over board in today's yacht race, I was on a different boat, but perhaps I should feel responsible simple because i was crewing on a different boat.. on the same race?

And, what of the more recent research that seems to totally debunk the theory (Linzden 2009 to name one), the emails, the released code (with comments included)?

In a field that has yet to find a direct link to Emissions and Temperature, yet seems to have plenty of evidence proving there is no link, you would think that it's specialists would be more balanced and open minded? A good friend of mine is a Micro Biologist.. I couldn't imagine her saying "Perhaps a special bacteria message from the medical gods to Andrew" coming out of her mouth - if she disagree;s with a colleague or anyone for that matter, she discusses.. asks questions.. probes.Yest in this field, those that believe want to silence those that don't...

In private enterprise, if you were a head of a department, you'd be expected to be balanced, fair and open minded.. It seems the Government has far less expectations from their Heads.

You have a very one eyed opinion, which you have a right to have! I suspect that no matter what new evidence comes to light, you will still believe in the AGW as you always have, your faith and your income rely on it. Is that a healthy attitude to have as Head of the National Climate Centre? With people like you, M.Mann, P.Jones, Rudd, Biffa, Gore, Obama and Flannery (shaking head) preaching the evils of man.. what hope do we have in finding the truth? You know.. the truth? That handy little thing that goes a long way to helping us find the real answers to the climate, so we can best deal with it and adapt.. Waging a war on Co2 (NOT CARBON) will not save the plight of the northward march of the south Siberian pine ant, to name one ridiculous (invented) claim. I wonder if instead we focused on real pollution, what difference would that make to our planet? I know there''s not much money in that though.

Its like declaring war on Tasmania for human rights abuse in China.

We should expect better.

I didn't post for political reasons. I posted because David Jones, a man that holds a senior position in government made a baseless statement about Andrew Bolt - who is known for allowing all views to be posted on his blog and whats more, does not make the science, reports what other scientists are doing, but are mostly experiencing the same treatment as me.. censorship.

So why would we need to censor something? Surely not because it hurts your feelings? That’s school yard stuff.

But some ideas would be:

1. Because you want to hide something
2. Their view opposes a set agenda
3. To hide your incompetence

Well, there'd be more I'm sure.

So I ask - What are your frightened of?

Integrity today is a rare quality indeed.


David Hewison.


Posts : 1
Join date : 2009-11-29

Back to top Go down

Integrity - A reminder of a near extinct human quality Empty Re: Integrity - A reminder of a near extinct human quality

Post  Karl Lijnders Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:38 pm


I have no problem with discussion on the basis that the dialogue is fair on both sides of the coin. Unfortunately in this medium of blogging or in this case a community like this, it never ends up being so. It is frustrating for me as a person who is trying to understand more about climate, to be in a position where I can't learn because it turns either political, abusive or completely off topic.

I understand that DJ is in a public role, that is his job. However if you would like to ask him questions about his integrity and his honesty, well this is not the place or the forum. I will not allow you to put someone on trial in this space. That is not going on. You were removed from this site because your agenda is not one I want on here. There is a difference in the discussion that was going on before Andrew posted a link to this site, which he is entitled to do.

Now it is becoming a little hostile. And you said you were not suprised your first post was deleted, so it seems like you have been down this path before. I have been in weather circles for a long while now, believe me I have no issue with your viewpoint on AGW, what I have a problem with is your judgemental attitude and your judgement of others. Of course it is your opinion but really the fact you have come back for more has now annoyed me to the point of calling you out on it.

So again I will lock this thread and hopefully you have been heard, and I am not for cencorship. I don't beleive in cencorship. So I will leave this thread up here, but lock it. Smile I would like people to read what is said.

I am all for free speech, but seeing as I own the site, please respect my view of what I will tolerate on here. It is like going into your home and deciding to graffiti the walls. I will not do the same to yours.

If you have any issues relating to DJ or anyone else at the BoM - please take it up with them. That would be great.

BTW I like Andrew Bolt. I love his passion on this subject and it really gets me thinking about AGW but I am not for or against. I just want it to rain and storm more, is that too much to ask... Wink Weather needs to go back to normal!! Smile
Karl Lijnders
Karl Lijnders

Posts : 1472
Join date : 2009-05-17
Age : 38
Location : Knoxfield, Victoria

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum