“Reading Berger’s essay, it is hard not to see the rise of climate alarmism as a Western form of the second of these trends, as left-leaning environmentalists, schooled in cultural relativism, reduce the complexities and uncertainties of climate science to a singular unquestionable truth: catastrophe looms unless we take urgent action. “Repent now or pay later” is the solemn warning of the Stern Report.”

Yes!

I would suggest that the fundamentalists are on the other side of the culture wars divide. The fundamental arbiter of what is true and real in western culture is the one dimensional ideology/religion of scientism. It is a disposition whereby one abstracts quite literally everything into clockwork components. All other more holistic ways of being in the world have been systematically elimininated--- and the latest technique used by its dogmatic thought police is to dismiss any and every other possible way of relating to and understanding human beings and the WORLD PROCESS, of which we are an integral part, with the term "relativism".
One dimensional clockwork man rules OK!
Peter Berger is also in effect a propagandist for this clockwork world because his "religious" understanding is entirely (mis)-informed by the equally one dimensional reductionism of exoteric religion---no ecstasy or paradox allowed!
Never mind that we live in a quantum world of space-time paradoxes in which EVEREYTHING is inter-related and yes there are multiple ways of looking at quite literally everything. Even (or especially) science acknowledges this quantum understanding of how things work. This understanding was signalled by Einsteins E=MC2, Heisengerg's Unceratainty Priniple and so on etc.

A very timely article, Richard. Well done.

Its funny how those who claim not to believe in absolutes are so dogmatic in defending their opinions, quick to pick up on spelling errors and intolerant of those who do believe in absolutes. The earth worshippers are among the best examples of this. Many of them have more 'faith' than Christians. They have faith in the hopelessly flawed evolution theory, the global warming myths and many other wild theories.

Speaking of one dimensional clock work man has anyone ever noticed that most of the so called "conservative" writers on this forum are affiliated either directly or indirectly with the IPA. I think Richard Castles is. Des Moore and Tom Quirk are too. And I would suggest that Graham the number one honcho of this forum is too?
The IPA being in effect the champion of the one-dimensional clock work "world" created in the image of scientific materialism. And also of equally reductionist exoteric religion. Exoteric Christianity of course being the only allowable "religion".
All others being dismissed asexercises in cultural relativism. Never mind that exoteric Christianity has only been around for less that 500 years. Hinduism and Buddhism with their profound ESOTERIC (quantum) understanding of Reality with a capital R for over 2500 years.

Nero fiddles while Rome burns. A few sceptics may make a few others breathe easier, but if they wrong, which it looks like they are, then, indeed, the future is bleak. The strategy is to cast doubt as the sceptics seem to have a minority of scientific evidence. This is not enough. I'm sceptical as to who may fund the disenters as there is money at stake. treyster

Hear Hear Perseus. The amount of ridicule the two West Australian Noble Prize winners had to put up with from the "consensus" view of the hidebound medical profession, and their own peer group was unreal; how much suffering might have been alleviated by a more open minded attitude. I do not know how many people have actually died from "global warming" so far, but about 600,000 Australian Hospital patients a year will develop an infection from their visit. About 18,000 a year die from them, that is about 36 747aircraft loads a year. How long would we put up with an Airline Industry with that sort of track record? Surely this is something the climate wonkers could have a go at right now?

Richard 42

BOAZ smiles.....as the words 'SCIENCE IS OBJECTIVE' float as a bubble around the room..only to explode under the pin prick of Richard42's opening sentence :)

onya Richard.

*Boaz wanders off for his quiet time with his Bible* :)

Thanks Ho Hum - while reading the piece by "Melbourne writer" Richard Castles, I immediately wondered about his affiliations. IPA again, eh? aren't the mining companies big donors to IPA? If not they soon will be no doubt.

With 32 bushfires raging in NSW before summer has even begun, and the drought biting ever deeper, I read in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that marine researchers in the UK have reported significant ocean warming over the last seven years, which may lead to a rise in atmospheric temperature of 9%, while New Zealand scientists working in Antarctica predict the collapse of an ice shelf the size of France. But no doubt all this is just scaremongering. Go to sleep little kiddies

Sensible measures need to be taken to reduce greenhouse pollution but sensible measures also need to apply to dealing with potential pandemics. The problem in this debate is one of extremes, those that deny cause and effect and those that want to create a doomsday scenario.

The question I have however is one of logic. What is the difference between a green telling us the end of the world will occur in 100 years and the prophecies of Nostradamus? It sounds like another doomsday cult to me...

"There is a corresponding psychological behaviour that could be pertinent to climate alarmism, namely compliance."

There's another behaviour that i think the psychologists should look into: "Labelism".
This describes a devastating need to categorise and label every nuance of human behaviour in order to have some nice sciency words to condescend with.

Perhaps Richard Castles might care to explain why his article is not "fundamentalism" of exactly the sort he decries in environmentalists.

Replete with cliches, this article sets up a straw dummy of environmentalism, which Castles then knocks down. For a real sample of where the extremes of the climate debate are, you might check http://www.climateaudit.org and compare to http://www.realclimate.org . Not being a scientist myself, I'll confine myself to saying that the glaciers are in retreat in many areas. Warming appears to be real, the argument is whether it is anthropocentric and global, or part of the natural fluctuations of climate.

Unwittingly, Richard Castles demonstrates exacly the kind of fundamentalism that the IPA is noted for. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Ho Hum: "...has anyone ever noticed that most of the so called "conservative" writers on this forum are affiliated either directly or indirectly with the IPA. I think Richard Castles is."

Kang: "Thanks Ho Hum - while reading the piece by "Melbourne writer" Richard Castles, I immediately wondered about his affiliations. IPA again, eh? aren't the mining companies big donors to IPA?"

Johnj: "Unwittingly, Richard Castles demonstrates exacly the kind of fundamentalism that the IPA is noted for."

Beautiful! Rumour to fact in two steps. Sorry to put an end to your Chinese Whispers, but I am not affiliated with the IPA.

Does this article debate whether climate change is real, or that it may/may not be anthropocentric? A serious appraisal of the Stern report or part of a right-wing echo chamber?

The first two paragraphs describe the perils of absolutism; the author then gracefully trips into the hole.

“Time and again we read that the debate is over, “climate change just is”, and denialists should get their heads out of the sand. “ There is general consensus among the overwhelming majority of scientists that there is a warming of the climate. The amount of anecdotal evidence alone is difficult to ignore (thanks Kang, and others); the article quoted by the author even confirms it. How many different interpretations of “temperature rise” are possible? Is the author saying there has been no change? Or that it has stopped? Or only that we haven’t agreed on the significance? Well, none of these. All we get is muddied water.

“Left-leaning environmentalists, schooled in cultural relativism” - 1…2….no, 3 red flags knitted into one phrase! Oh this article is beautifully crafted. How about just ‘environmentalists’? Are all environmentalists left-leaning? I didn’t realise a leftist bent went hand in hand with a concern for the grandkids.

Indeed, “a devastating lack of resistance to persuasion and unquestioning acceptance of authority” can be characterised as more a condition of the right. (The left simply lacks the moral clarity.)

DB, science is indeed objective. Many of its practitioners are not. It’s a tool, a technique, a methodology, and the only reason we now have a natural explanation for rainbows. ;)

And ulcers, of course.

It is true that “history is populated with figures who remained resistant to universally accepted truths and subsequently revolutionised our thinking.” Perhaps we should all view climate change with the same detached interest we give to stomach bugs.

Or perhaps we shouldn’t

cont…

“Denial, as a pop-psychological term, is bandied about too readily these days, especially when it relates to future uncertainties, not past occurrences” What’s the drought? A figment of my imagination? Not just in Australia either. Think Africa. Think England.

Matt, Nostradamus’ writings have as many interpretations as do the gospels. Interpret them at your peril. A ‘green’ - I assume you mean conservationist - just has to look out the window at the smog, the drought, the diminishing fish stocks, the salinity, the rising or toxic water table, the growing list of extinct species…and that’s just Australia. You get the point. Or maybe, when you look out your window, you see something else. The cost of doing business?

“Our most firmly established scientific theories undergo years of rigorous testing before they are welcomed into the category of accepted fact, and even then remain open to challenge. Yet reports such as Stern's are widely taken as gospel…”
umm, Richard, the Stern report was conducted by an economist and not at atmospheric scientist. The science on which it is based is not Stern’s, though it has been around for a while. Refute the economic predictions at your leisure.

Whether or not it provides a viable response to climate change, the scientific predictions will only tend to reinforce one’s predisposition. I’m usually loathe to attack the messenger but this analysis includes so much dross it’s impossible not to ponder its origins. Nigel Lawson, whom the author quotes, is merely a mouthpiece for a Thatcherite organisation that “champions economic liberalism and has played a global role in the dissemination of free market economics” - in short, a rightwing thinktank. The main source of the reference article is Peter Berger, a theologist who champions the Bush agenda.

So much for objectivity. Thanks for your effort, Richard.

I agree with bennie. So every climate change 'beleiver' is a left-leaning environmentalist/fundamentalist and the rest of us have the wool pulled over our eyes while we label anyone who disagrees with us a 'denialist'? Hmmmm... is the author trying to suggest the emergence of a climate-change cult? If he is, I think many of the people posting in this forum would agree with him. The thing is, climate-change isn't an ideology or a religion for people to buy into or deny, it is a fact or as close to a sure thing as you can get.(and no, I have not been brainwashed by scientists and world leaders).

If such questioning attitudes had prevailed over the recent Iraqi venture!

I guess the interests of those who wanted war would be ill served by scepticism better war patriotism terror laws and those who would lead, leading.

Why was not such scepticism operative? Because people have naturally inclined views reinforced by a Media at the service of those who would have war! (or something else)

A way out?

I may be wrong but Amory Lovins suggested and demonstrated that energy efficiency was profitable, that working with, rather than against natural forces was productive at lesser GHG cost. Check out what he demonstrates not that he is a lone just the one who first pushed t energy efficiency in recent times when such had been ignored.

Would this approach widely applied reduce base load needs to acceptable GHG costs, especially if one improved transport efficiency even subsidising the purchase of superior vehicles? Even perhaps teaching planners to make work and sleep areas near each other linked by a transit system and residents Media advised that experiencing holidays, nature football matches (or Cricket if that is your twist) etc can be done mostly via the electronic age. Even Cyber sex is fun I am told though anathema to Church and Right wing.

No we must have our leaders and show how big we are by trashing Iraq and the U.N.
Lucky we are not paedophiles or the media would be in the money, as it is, just international law. Media distorted to the ends of those who would rule.

After all the climate lobby has been more dishonest than any argument I see voiced here, honest only as the voice of vested interest using tried and tested ways of propaganda.

Please you mathematically inclined calculate the reduction of GHG if all building made energy neutral and transport made twice as efficient either by avoided use or use of energy efficient transport.

We may not need a fundamentalist or relative view of climate. Perhaps even find that missing cause of climate change so obvious to the informed or opinionated.

well said bennie.

It's odd that climate change sceptics like to use the example of stomach ulcers to demonstrate unthinking adherence to scientific trends.

Ulcer research was stymied for so long because pharmaceutical giants preferred to sell ulcer sufferers a lifetime of symptom-reducing drugs rather than a one-off cure. It was a classic case of big business versus the dastardly scientists who would rob them of revenue by increasing human knowledge and improving mankind's lot.

When it comes to climate change, I admire the fossil fuel Goliath's attempt to portray itself as David, but it just ain't working.

And Runner, when you post comments against evolution, are you aware how palpable your fear is?

Relax, mate! Evolution doesn't deny god, just a literal interpretation of the bible. The man upstairs didn't give you eyes just so you could walk around with them shut.

It is hard to imagine why no-one has mentioned the Precautionary Principle which underwrites all of the climate change arguments.

This principle holds that it is irrelevant whether climate change is man-made or not, it is even irrelevant whether or not it is actually happening, what is relevant is that the impacts of climate change are potentially so immense that if there is even a small chance that we can, by cutting C02 emissions etc, mitigate these effects significantly then that is a precaution we are obliged to take, notwithstanding the fact that there is no proof these measures will make a jot of difference.

re:
“It is astounding that on an issue of such alleged urgency, leaders such as [Kofi] Annan are unable to see the value that a sceptical eye can bring to any debate.”

What puzzles me is that many of the same people who demand such a high standard of scepticism with respect to Global Warming are happy to implicitly accept the models for “economic development” and/or “sustainable energy” which underlie proposals for more nuclear electricity, for geosequestration, for shipping more and more Australian coal to China.

Global economic development is increasing at an increasing rate. Global Population is increasing at an increasing rate. Global industrial production is increasing at an increasing rate, and consequently, global pollution is increasing at an increasing rate.

These phenomena show same pattern as the growth of compound interest in the bank.

Find me an expert that can convince me that human population growth and/or economic growth (thought to be linked to money in banks) is not exponential in nature.

I’m asking here for an expert, not Maggie Thatcher’s old and logically consummate scientific factotum, Chris Monckton, who might easily convince us all with his brilliant logic,erudition and eloquence that bumblebees are aerodynamically incapable of flight.

If Chris can talk me out of my concerns about exponential growth of population, production and pollutants, I congratulate him in advance

Because Blind Freddy can see that products and processes created by monetary wealth generate more products and processes, money and pollution (ie CO2) in the same pattern of compounding “interest”.

And just like Scrooge McDuck’s treasury can only hold so many coins, our world can only tolerate a limited amount of population, production and pollution.

I am not talking here about absolutism or relativism, I am talking about year 11 maths and its application to our world.

My guess is that the CO2 from our Chinese and Indian coal exports will come back to us with a vengeance, just like Bob Menzies’ pig-iron did, 65 years ago. The question is, when, and that’s just a matter of the “interest rates”.

Johnj: "Perhaps Richard Castles might care to explain why his article is not "fundamentalism" of exactly the sort he decries in environmentalists."

Thank you for your question. I think there are many differences, but one relevant one is that I am not demanding that you be shut out of this discussion simply for asking that question.

Bennie: "Perhaps we should all view climate change with the same detached interest we give to stomach bugs.

Or perhaps we shouldn’t"

Or perhaps we should.

Rob513264: "This [Precautionary] principle holds that it is irrelevant whether climate change is man-made or not, it is even irrelevant whether or not it is actually happening..."

I put an apple on my head every full moon to prevent martian attacks. You may laugh but it's working so far - it's your precautionary principle in action.

I found this a thought provoking article, but I wonder if I'm read the same article as everyone else...

In any area of human endeavour, sceptics should not only be welcomed but recognised as crucial to our understanding of the world. There now appears to be evidence that points towards human responsibility for climate change. But lets be honest, overwhelming as that evidence may seem at the moment there is still a chance it may be wrong. By shutting sceptics and doubters out of the debate we risk ignorance - by allowing them we at worst risk being corrected.

In terms of the arguements against eco-fundamentalism, as with any absolutionist view (whether religious, economic, scientific or political), I can only agree with the author that the tendacy to shout down the doubters or deniers is wrong.

In my eyes, Richards main point about the lack of what I think of as "civl discourse" on climate change is right on the money. Doubters do seem to be shouted down in almost religious terms. In my opinion it is due to a decline in standards of public debate, most evident on the left but importantly not limited to it, over the last 50 years. I'm just not sure who or what is to blame...

*Just in case anyone is wondering, not a member of the IPA or any other part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but a humble member of the Greens.

Martians don’t attack when it’s full moon, you silly. They wait until it’s dark.

Richard, my apologies for falsely linking you with the Institute for Public Aaffairs. My only excuse is that OLO post so much IPA-sponsored rubbish that I jumped to a (mistaken) conclusion.

That said, I still don't agree with your arguments. Your only links are to (a) an opinion piece by Brendan O'neill, which judging by the blog comments was not greeted with universal approbration and (b) a paper from the Centre for Policy Studies http://www.cps.org.uk by Nigella Lawson's dad. No link to any climate science, just opinion pieces by a contrarian journalist and a retired Tory politician. Then you have the temerity to complain about the "retreat from reason we see all around us today.”

I wear a tinfoil hat to ward off Martian attacks. I also insure my house against destruction. They're both precationary activities.

Whether right leaning environmentalism or left leaning fundamentalism, whether sceptics, doubters or deniers, whether man-made or not: climate change is happening while we are debating. Whatever there might be the reasons and causes, environment destruction cannot be healthy. So: stop it as soon and as far as possible!

Thank you Ben G. I am glad to read someone who has at least responded to the actual point of my piece. You sound like a Green I would be happy to have a civilised natter with, and not just because you agree with me on this one.

Thank you too Johnj for, I think, acknowledging a mistake. My piece did not focus on the climate science. I added the links for the interest of readers, Brendan's because it came out concurrently and talked of similar concerns. Perhaps, rather than judge by the blog comments, and make assumptions as you did about my affiliations, you should have a read. Also, I don't think being Nigella Lawson's dad necessarily disqualifies anybody from being reasonable. The words you accused me of having the temerity to say were actually his. Lastly, just out of interest, do you wear your tin foil hat when you're meeting with your insurance manager?

Richard,

Paragraphs 1 & 2 make valid points. Since your piece “did not focus on the climate science”, you’ve no reason to characterise the logical response as “climate alarmism”.

The rest is just leftie-baiting.

A bit odd that this article is listed under Environment instead of Religion.

I see the economic fundamentalists are again emerging from their burrows to stifle public debate as a result of their vested interests.

The author claims "Environmentalists are shrewd to label anyone who scrutinises the economics and science of climate modelling as "denialists" implying more than disagreement, but a psychopathological resistance to the fearful truth". What the..?

Are your ears/eyes glued on, Mr Castles? Those you oppose also obtain their hypotheses from scientific evidence, where they too form conclusions only after much scrutiny. Following are opinions from Australia's scientific community - no doubt whom you would describe as "Green Fundamentalists" and part of "a society that resists debate and demonises those who would question dominant ideas.......".

The following responses are from eminent Australian climate experts to the Age's request to provide a rating out of 5 for the film "An Inconvenient Truth":

Dr Penny Whetton CSIRO's head of climate change = 4.75. Dr Michael Couglin head of National Climate Centre = 4. Dr Kevin Hennessy principal research scientist, CSIRO = 4.5. Dr Graeme Pearman former CSIRO director of atmospheric research = 4. Dr David Jones head of climate analysis National Climate Centre = 4.9. Dr Barrie Pittock former CSIRO climate impact group leader = 5. Dr Kathy McInnes, principal research scientist CSIRO = 4.5.

Dr Pearman was quoted as stating: "It is not a doom-saying exercise because it is positive about what can be done".

So what are YOU going to do Mr Castles? Frankly, I don't believe you have the foggiest idea since you appear consumed with a blinkered obsession to halt debate by spreading lies and misinformation in the now well-established tradition of green polemics!

dickie, could you please help me by pointing out the "lies and misinformation" in my opinion.

Richard, having concluded your article with the quote from Baron Lawson of Blaby, I can only suppose you agree with it. Otherwise, why include it without any qualification? To then argue that it is not your opinion is pure sophistry. Especially when in your previous paragraph you said "a society that resists debate and demonises .... paves the way for its demise." If I read that correctly, it suggests that environmentalism (an environmentalist mindset?) will lead to the destruction of Western Civilization. And then you accuse others of extremism....

Open debate in a pluralist society is healthy, but all debaters bring their own values to the debate. Where is your proof that environmentalists are "fundamentalists", where Nigel Lawson is not? Are you suggesting that Lawson's "values" are more maleable than (some un-named) environmentalist? Or is it merely that Lawson's values equate more closely with your own?

I avoid meeting insurance executives if I can, the tinfoil hat keeps them away. It also keeps "fundamentalist" greenies away too; I haven't met one yet.

Scepticism is a handy thing, when used in moderation, following actual investigation. Mr Castles throws moderation out the window by characterising all greens as shouting down all scepticism, making no reference to decades of science that support anthropogenic climate change preceeding the Stern Report, and ignoring the economic fundamentalist elephant in the living room (that is sacrosanct from scepticism in the eyes of PBL, NewsCorp, Fairfax, and even Crikey).

As Rumsfeld (and now Costello too!) says, we don't know what we don't know - if only retired Tories and wannabe commentators who cite them knew how little they knew.

But hey folks, at least they've moved on from plain old ridicule of greenies, as the flood of "reasonable" CC sceptics on OLO lately shows. They no longer call us all dole bludging commie faggots, and the repeated use of terms like "alarmism" seems poor literacy rather than ridicule.

Where ignorance cannot be pleaded is in Mr Castles more sly confabulations:
"A society that resists debate and demonises those who would question dominant ideas is in an unhealthy state, and paves the way for its demise."

How is acceptance of anthropogenic climate change in any way a dominant idea? In science, sure, the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept ACC, even as they debate, measure, model and wonder how it is happening. Check out realclimate.org if interested in how the grownups are discussing this stuff.

But outside science, in politics, economics, and mediated culture, ACC is nowhere and nothing. A few govt departments are passing around papers, a few corporations have included paragraphs in their purely-for-display purposes social responsibility charters, some newspapers are filling a few columns with fancy pictures and climate porn.

But the 'growth is good' economy continues to push the pedal to the floor - suburbs sprawl and public transport crumbles, local manufacturing is exported to no-standards countries, superannuation funds and the overpaid pursue ever greater returns in the stockmarket, and Howards Coal-ition govt is pretending nukes & 20yrs-maybe geosequestration are the answer.

...cont.
How exactly is ACC a dominant idea, except in the outraged minds of those accustomed (no, Entitled!) to mega-dividends and share profits from amoral mining and energy corporations?

So Mr Castles, if you want to be a moderating voice, don't start by smearing one set of views, don't flat ignore all of the science and most of the relevant cultural factors, and don't portray one report (by an economist of all things!) as pivotal.

Of course you then wont get published in the newspaper, but at least you'll have a shred of credibility and might survive the inevitable pogroms when our kids cotton on to what we've done to them.

Well I was about to Mr Castles. However, Johnj and Liam have saved me the trouble where they too have (with much accuracy) raised the issue of your bias and misinformation.

Labelling environmentalists as "psychopathological", then committing the deadly sin of failing to support your colourful assertions with documented evidence, evokes a strong desire for one to thoroughly scrutinise your motives.

Since you have failed the "open and transparent" test, I suspect your motives are similar to those firmly entrenched in the minds of the IPA and CCI executives and its industry members, where agendas are strictly fiscal and it's profits at all costs!

Reading over all these posts, Richard, you critics could not have done a better job of highlighting the very fundamentalism and intolerance of contrary opinion that you refer to.

It seems there is nothing like a measured, reasonable statement on attributes of the climate debate for flushing out the drop kicks and the gonzo diatribes. The only thing missing from some of them was the spittle but even that may have hit the odd PC screen.

So my advice is to save this trail of posts for any situation where you need to explain to ordinary, reasonable folk why global warming is the new religion of the lumpen scheiser.

And this, from another non-paid, non-member of the IPA.

Mr Castle, I'm pleased to read your posts regarding the comments on your article.

A few questions:
(1) Which would you say you are more interested in the tension between fundamentalism and relativism, or the science and/or economics of climate change?

Re:

"Our most firmly established scientific theories undergo years of rigorous testing before they are welcomed into the category of accepted fact, and even then remain open to challenge. Yet reports such as Stern's are widely taken as gospel before they have been subjected to the intense scrutiny that the importance of the subject demands. There are already signs that major elements of the report will not survive such scrutiny."

(2) Can you be more precise about these signs? What are they? What elements of the report are invalidated, and by whom?

Here is an abridged set of points from the last page of the summary and conclusions of the Stern Report, under the subheading

“Climate change demands an international response, based on a shared
understanding of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks for action.”

“Key elements of future international frameworks should include:

Emissions trading:
“ … strong targets in rich countries could drive flows amounting to tens of billions of dollars each year to support the transition to low-carbon development paths.”

Technology cooperation:
“ ... International cooperation on product standards is a powerful way to boost energy efficiency. "

Action to reduce deforestation:
“ ... Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; ..."

Adaptation:
“The poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honour their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance ...”

(3) Do you disagree with any of the above opinions?
(4) Failing out-and-out disagreement on one or more, do you believe that inaction is justified on the grounds of their uncertainty or arguability?

If you aren’t really interested in global warming, its predicted consequences and recommended mitigation measures, then I'd say skip questions 2-4.

Stern Review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

Here we go again ‘I think therefore I am therefore the universe is the way it is because I think it to be’. Philosophy and our pollution problems are anthropogenic. Pollution has real consequences one of which is climate change. Large amounts of gases in the atmosphere heat or cool the atmosphere, soil and waters.

Relativism or post modernism or political correctness or what ever it is called has no relevance on climate change, nor has it a place with science. Reality has real functions, consequences, actions, real cause and effects. The problem is we confused the doctors average statistic based guess that we have 2 months to live with actual hard science.

Anthropogenic caused climate change has been known for 25 years, we know the climate has been rapidly heating since the industrial revolution and the warming is now leaping at extreme rates. By 20 years ago there was no excuse for denying anthropogenic caused climate change. Those who deny climate change and its causes are only demonstrating ignorance, most of the time the so called denial is to serve other agendas. Yes some can not cope with reality and so resist truth. Inevitably most of the time denialists are pseudo-scientists who make a hobby out of science without knowing what science is.

To compare the search for tools to arrest climate change (which is arresting pollution) with philosophy and religion is itself nonsensical. Such argument is akin to arguing that bushfire risk and preparation is similar and as necessary as a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. It is as if the argument is saying that building a fire track and clearing gutters is only the fire fighters fundamentalist dogma to be taken in the same regard as a pious widow should marry her brother in law lest she burn in the magical kingdom of hell.

We are stuck on arguing what started the fire and wether the bushfire that burns the night before fire ban season is actually burning on fire season. Forget religion and philosophy let’s put out the fire

I put climate change sceptics in the same category as those who work for tobacco companies and say that it is inconclusive that smoking causes cancer. If Richard Castles thinks those people are valuable, then he is entitle to his opinion I guess... some people are useful to society and others are just a waste of oxygen.

"Time and again we read that the debate is over, “climate change just is”,"

This just complete rubbish.

Let me make my position clear. I am not a global warming skeptic, it is obvious that it is happening, and the historical records show a history of constant change in global climate; it is nothing new. What I am skeptical about is the insistence that 400ppm of CO2, caused by burning fossil fuels etc. since industrialisation is the reason, and that anyone who questions this "fundamental truth" is either a wannabe scientist, in the pay of the coal or oil lobby, or part of a right wing conspiracy to muddy a nice clean and PC position. Get Real. Get your head around this fact: 400ppm is 0.04% of the total greenhouse gas, by far the largest part is water vapour, and by far the largest influence on the world's climate is the sun's radiation, which fluctuates, like most other things in the Universe.

Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors, even Think about.

1. "Heat vent in Pacific cloud cover could diminish global warming" The study done by NASA and MIT proposes that "The tropical pacific ocean may be able to open a "vent" in its heat trapping cirrus cloud cover and release enough energy into space to significantly diminish the projected climate warming caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Needless to say this effect is not included in the current computer model of prediction: GIGO anyone? Any scientists out there been tracking this, who can update us? www.sciencedaily.com March 6 2001

2."Cloud research indicates a faster pace for stratospheric Ozone destruction" www.sciencedaily.com November 20 2006 Their lab experiment showed: "that the small ice particles in SVC clouds are not completely solid, as is usually believed, but rather coated with a sulphuric acid water overlayer" Their conclusion "The coating reduces the rate at which ice particles grow and remove water vapour-a key greenhouse gas-from the upper troposphere. This leaves more water vapour to contribute to the greenhouse effect."

Richard42

Sams in Canada asbestos companies are still debating wether asbestos is a health risk and continues to export asbestos to the developing world. In the U.S the Discovery Institute was created to use scientific discourse and language as propaganda to support polluting industry and creationism and to eventually undermine science altogether. There is a fifth world in existence at the moment where people choose myth to justify their own superstition and prejudice. This fifth world creates a duplicity where it is opposed to science and reason by attempts to use a pseudo-science and pseudo-reasoning to reinforce itself.

I agree Perseus. It would be impossible in this forum to respond to all the errors of fact, distortions, false assumptions, accusations, non sequiturs and unreason above. Indeed, it is an unquestioned assumption that I am not an environmentalist – the piece could quite conceivably be written by one. 'Green' Ben G above agreed. Where I said I "opposed" all these climate scientists, "all" Greens, I can't see - the article was about "fundamentalist" censorship of sceptics.

Endeavouring to return focus to the actual topic, I note the following from Johnj: “Open debate in a pluralist society is healthy, but all debaters bring their own values to the debate.” The relativist returns. The assertion that I must be with the IPA is demonstrably false, my denial demonstrably true – the latter statement, in my view, is therefore of more value. This process can be used widely. If all views are of equal value, then toward what purpose are the above commentators even debating with me? If, on the other hand, reason itself is “fundamentalist”, then please address the same question - without use of reason, mind you (Or perhaps that is what you are doing!)

Briefly, Johnj, it is not sophistry to correctly attribute a quote, it is an adherence to standards of truthfulness. Dickie, you accuse me of failing the "open and transparent" test? Was there something about me you wanted to know? I did not label environmentalists "psychopathological" - you might read the piece again and brush up on your comprehension. I am still unenlightened about the lies you accuse me of. That'll do for now.

Mr Castles slings the 'alarmist' and 'fundamentalist' mud around with abandon, citing no-one exactly and so smearing many. Then he acts hurt when others give as good generalisations as they get... ever hear of 'do unto others..'?

Richard42, you're recycling old doubts. The Iris Effect (as others have tagged it) is an old favs of Lomborgs & i see the American Chemical Society recently put out that 2001 finding in a press pack http://www.newsguide.us/education/science/ACS-News-Service-Weekly-PressPac-Nov-15-2006/?date=2006-11-20
without, surprise surprise, acknowledging any of the subsequent research. Getting desperate or what!

Evidence contrary to the Iris Effect theory, e.g.
Study Finds Thicker Storm Clouds Over Warmer Tropical Waters, Affect Climate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020920071736.htm
NASA SATELLITE INSTRUMENT WARMS UP GLOBAL COOLING THEORY
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/200201167312.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/D/20024162.html

This link from Scientific American covers it much better than i could..
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=5&catID=9

On water vapour, we knew it played a role a century ago, what exactly is the relevance of your reference to SVCs?

I'm pleased to agree Richard that CO2 is not the sole cause of global warming, but then so does everybody who can read. I'd suggest you read any high school primer on the subject, it breaks down the relative roles of CO2, CO, CH4, SO2, H2O, HFCs etc

"Lumpen Scheiser"? What a charmer this Perseus is!

So let me see - the definition of lumpen = misfit and the definition of scheiser = a crude expression for sexual intercourse. The crude word in English, I believe starts with "F". Mmmm - I see this very unusual word was also used in Jenny Mahrosey's (IPA member) website - interesting!

Perhaps someone should advise Perseus that it's a desperate dumkoph who resorts to these tactics to frantically censor opposing views with such imperfect utterances and frothy rants!

And I suspect the froth is all over Dumkoph's PC screen, where his crude attacks are devoid of anything sensible or supportive of his
vitriole against those who are environmentally savvy and entitled to be part of a civilised debate!

West, just an aside. Descartes, observing thought, falsely concluded "I think therefore I am", an error which has had unfortunate ego-reinforcing consequences. If he'd been a bit brighter, he would have concluded "I think therefore thinking is."

For decades environmentalists tried to debate the issues.
Now tangible evidence is forcing this.
Whilst finally there are talks of greener this and pledges of reductions here, cuts there; for the most part it is business as usual.

All the rhetoric is enough to make you go deaf and all the inaction is enough to make us all go death.
Meanwhile another rural farmer takes his life.

dickie, I'm afraid your German is as execrable as Perseus' comments. Scheiser if German for s--- not f---. The term was originally lumpenproletariat, coined by Karl Marx for "swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society." Lumpen Scheiser? Well I guess Perseus might enlighten us on what he meant. Nothing complimentary I expect.....

Perhaps the quality of the debate on this thread suggests that Western Civilization IS on the way to collapse. Certainly, the recourse to bodily functions (excrement, spittle) seems a little degenerate to me.

By the way, why do you use dickie as your alias on this site? Not another sign of degeneracy I hope.....

I don't feel hurt, Liam. How have I acted "hurt"?

Liam, your linked article from the NASA observatory that suposedly debunks the (iris) cooling effect of tropical clouds is a joke. The paper didn't even distinguish between tropical Cumulus clouds and the upper level Cirostratus clouds that actually thin out to release the heat reflected from the heavy Cumulus clouds below.

And if the paper didn't even register that distinction then no amount of clever instrumentation will overcome the problem of GIGO.

Ditto the other links to opinion pieces masquerading as science. Give us a break.

And whats the matter fellas? Spend all your time slandering people, abusing honest questioners as some sort of class enemy and then cry foul when someone dishes it back. Most of you folks read like you haven't had a bowel movement in three weeks.

Mr. Castle, I’m disappointed not to have my questions addressed. You seem willing enough to acknowledge Perseus, who asks no questions of you, or to provide feedback to Liam about your feelings, but I thought you would be more interested in addressing the argument, rather than the arguers.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your intent: is the argument about fundamentalists vs. absolutists, or is it about environmental scepticism (discussing indefinitely the yes-buts and what-if’s of mainstream global climate and economic models) vs. environmental action (such as implementing recommendations of the Stern Report)?

Or is it about something else which I have missed? Perhaps it is time to "photograph the goalposts" as it were. A time exposure will do very nicely.

I note that the first question I put on 3 December lacked the punctuation needed to make it quickly read. restated, it says
(1) Which would you say you are more interested in: the tension between fundamentalism and relativism, or the science and/or economics of climate change?

And, as I said in my December 3 post,
”If you aren’t really interested in global warming, its predicted consequences and recommended mitigation measures, then I'd say skip questions 2-4”
of that post.

While I don’t expect anyone these days to have the necessaries to play David to the Stern Review’s Goliath, I would be curious to know whose sling you or Perseus think has delivered the crippling blow. Any champions in particular?

Has the redoubtable Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had a shot yet? According to Matt Ridley, of Time Magazine, “He just might be the Martin Luther of the environmental movement”
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2004/time100/scientists/100lomborg.html

See http://www.lomborg.com/ for more current information - that was 2004

For those further interested in the global warming debate, Liam’s links lead to some excellent background items:

Scientific American (www)
January 02, 2002
Misleading Math about the Earth
Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000
and
Scientific American (www)
April 15, 2002
A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal
By John Rennie
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF

And for those wishing to dine on yet meatier fare, there is:
The Stern Review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/
stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cf

Sirvivor, the fact that you could describe John Rennie's opinion pieces as "excellent" trashes your credibility no end. It is full of straw men, hypothetical crimes of what Blomberg "should have said", outrageous posturing of his own opinion as being that of "science" and the usual attempts at forcing dissent into political pigeon holes, the better to be misunderstood by the punters.

Stern takes all the overstated assumptions that are incorporated in the IPCC emission scenarios and then applies a purely "public service" standard costing to them and, surprise, surprise, the cost is very high.

Furthermore, the guy apparently doesn't understand the simple concept of double entry bookkeeping whereby one records both debits and credits. Stern gathers up all the costs and losses but, curiously can find few gains or benefits.

For example, all of his "costings" assume only modest levels of carbon fertilisation in vegetation. But next time you drive past a highway culvert and see vigorous growth in trees that essentially have no soil, limited capacity to retain soil moisture, steep slope, and limited access to nutrients, then you will get a first hand view of exactly how much increased CO2 can boost plant growth and re-absorb carbon.

And Stern's cyclone costings are a joke. I am currently building a new house on a site that has been in the eye of three cyclones in the past 60 years. The old house that survived those cyclones is still standing but the new house will have even stronger measures to protect it. It cost $190 for bracing ply, $80 worth of threaded bar and $30 worth of metal strapping. But on Stern's European Public Servant costings, there would be little change out of the average annual salary.

It is sick joke on a gullible public.

Johnj - It is not my German! I do not read or speak the language. However, should you care to research this word, you may find that "scheiser" may be an American stuff-up of "scheibe" or "scheisse".

The straightforward English translation is as you advise "S" but there are copious offensive translations and some of the younger Germans express this word as "F".

Since you appear to have a fetish for vulgar words, with your query as to why my psuedonym is "Dickie", I advise there is no intended, crude innuendo in my selection of that name, particularly when it has nothing to do with my gender!

Perhaps you should return to the issue at hand?

Dear Mr Castle,

While you may know who John Rennie is, other readers may not be so aware, so I post this abridged biography. from the (US) School Science and Mathematics Association
http://www.ssma.org/rennie.html

”Biography for
John Rennie
[current] EDITOR IN CHIEF, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
John Rennie is only the seventh editor in chief in the nearly 155-year history of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine. Since his appointment in late 1994, he has been the creative force behind the modernization and reinvigoration of this great publishing institution.”

”Rennie joined the staff of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN as a member of the Board of Editors in 1989, having previously worked as a science writer covering biology, technology and medicine for a variety of publications. He helped to plan and edit several of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's distinguished single-topic issues, including Mind and Brain (September 1992, the best selling special issue in SA's history) and Life, Death and the Immune System (September 1993, later republished as a book by W. H. Freeman).”

”As editor in chief, Rennie has overseen … Key Technologies for the 21st Century (September 1995) and What You Need to Know About Cancer (September 1996). Both … were nominated for National Magazine Awards …; What You Need to Know About Cancer won for editorial excellence in the Single-Topic Issue category.”

”In addition to his work on the monthly SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine, Rennie has served since 1998 as editor in chief of the quarterly magazine SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN PRESENTS. He has been involved in the launch of Scientific American's web site, www.SciAm.com, and of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN EXPLORATIONS, the family science magazine.”

(snip)

“For several years, Rennie also worked by night as a sketch and improvisational comedian in New York, Boston and college venues. These days his major hobby is the study of karate, in which he holds the rank of nidan (2nd degree black belt).”

And to the best of my knowledge, John Rennie (unlike Bjorn Lomborg) has never been hauled over the coals by the The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.
See http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm for part of the story on that one.

Richard Castles wrote: "Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors,"

I've checked out the facts, so you can keep your red herrings. I prefer to trust the judgementsof thousands of qualified climatologists over your backyard metaphysics. I have a PhD in physics, and I know a fake when I see one.

My apologies dickie if my feeble attempts at humour offended.

That said, I don't know there's much point in returning to the issue at hand. Richard has made it clear his article didn't "focus on the climate science" He isn't interested in the science, except to denigrate those who disagree with him. In fact, for him the whole issue is simply a stick to beat ideological foes with (eg moral relativists such as myself). Thus the debate has degenerated into mud-slinging (myself not excepted). Posters have been arguing at cross purposes. I think global warming is important, Richard and his ilk simply use the issue to stir the pot.

This thread has seen plenty of heat, but not much light. Apposite for an article dealing with global warming.

Its almost redundant to add to this rout of wilful ignorance and obscenity, but as Perseus insists on boasting of his pitifully weak hand...

Increases in veg. growth with higher CO2?

Aus. Greenhouse Office:
"Bearing in mind the constraints on the scientific knowledge base noted above and the lack of elevated CO2 experimentation that has been done under Australian environmental conditions, the effects of changing climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration on Australian plantbased industries can be summarised as follows.

Cropping (wheat) systems: Given the dearth of experimentally based information for Australian conditions, model-based analyses are the only way to estimate impacts of climate change on the Australian wheat industry. A sophisticated model-based assessment that included the effects of both elevated CO2 and changes in climate means and extremes has proposed (i) small increases in mean production, but a significant probability of lowered production; (ii) marked regional differences in production; and (iii) enhanced production if growers respond with appropriate adaptation strategies. Nonetheless, given that the probabilities of positive or negative overall effects are roughly equal, we might well conclude on the basis of risk assessment that there is a serious cause for concern about the future of the current Australian wheat industry under global climate change.

Grazing systems: A detailed model-based study for Queensland of the impacts of doubling CO2, increasing temperature, and varying rainfall suggests that ‘safe’ animal carrying capacity may increase, but major uncertainties remain on the effects of elevated CO2 and climate change on nutritional quality of feed, plantplant competition, both in terms of the composition of herbaceous species and of the woody:grass ratio.

Forestry systems: Compared with cropping and grazing systems, less is known about the effects of elevated CO2 on Australian forests. The limited observational evidence available internationally is inconclusive but suggests that elevated CO2 effects decrease as trees age, so the effects of elevated CO2 on old growth or mature forests will be less than on short-rotation plantation forests, where it is likely that fast-growing saplings and young trees are more likely to respond to elevated CO2 with enhanced net primary production.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/agriculture/publications/carbon.html

(CO2 fertilisation continued..)

or

"Unfortunately, the results of experiments with raising crops under artificial circumstances do not always correspond with data from actual farms. For example, models indicate that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to nearly 360 ppm today should already have increased actual farm yields by 1-5%. However, no statistically significant increases related to "CO2-fertilisation" have yet been detected."
http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/sid101/uncc/fs122.html

2nd link (further on) supports other findings showing lower nutrient content in CO2-fertilised plants, meaning stock and humans have to eat more to get same food value.

These do not directly contradict Perseus' claims about plant growth in the unknown ditch he refers to (but provides no published data on, lol), but they do show that his exagerated claims on CO2 fertilisation have nothing to do with real science.

Before getting obscene with me again Perseus, please address the many questions other posters have raised with your previous fabrications in this thread (never mind other threads).

Liam, the 1999 CSIRO workshop on the impact of climate change on temperate forests was advised that increased CO2 levels tended to improve water use efficiency (more growth from same water or same growth from less water) and improved growth overall. I delivered the industry perspective to that gathering but don't recall meeting any Liams.

Your quote dealing with the lower fertilisation effect in old growth forest is a classic example of a little knowledge that merely confuses the ignorant. Old growth trees do not experience a growtrh increase from higher CO2 because they are actually in the process of dying. And if you had a rudimentary grasp of the Australian forest estate you would know that only a very small portion of it is old growth. The rest is regrowth in various life cycle stages and fully capable of exploiting an increase in CO2.

Furthermore, vast tracts of rangelands all over the world are subject to the thickenning process whereby what was once sparse tree cover has undergone substantial increases in stem density and size. And one of the likely contributing factors to this phenomenon is increased CO2.

Stern was in serious error to assume that this carbon fertilisation effect would be minimal.

And as for your apparent awe for someone who is essentially a journalist, one can only say, pathetic.

Liam what was the date of that post? I would think carbon fertilisation is now beside the point because of current drying trends. There are similar arguments of capturing benefits of salinity but in the case of sodium a lot of hard work is required to instigate agriculture which also meets consumer resistance.
Drought causes biodiversity decline which in turn impacts on grazing and forestry. Climate change is lowering anticyclonic tracks which Australia depends on. For the continent to heat enough to draw in seasonal monsoonal rains to the entire continent (which will eventually occur in the future) will create an even harsher climate regime than the drought climate we have now. For the next several decades Australia is drying. This has occurred in prehistory but unlike any time before refuge corridors are closed for species dispersal. Through land clearance and urbanisation we have blocked off access for species to access refuge. Most creeks on the eastern and south-western sea boards are so dammed up that they remain dry even in normal wet periods and so offer less refuge. Water tables are lowering from over use and are accelerating because of the drought. The effect of this will be the loss of large tree species in many areas. There will be biodiversity loss and major shifts in ecosystems but the result will be poorer than in recent prehistory because species are mostly isolated and contained.
What we are facing is coastal communities like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne facing a climate liken to Alice Springs and for the Alice , the Sahara.

Dear Mr Castles,
See “Mother-earthism infects climate change debate”
By Bob Carter - posted Thursday, 6 October 2005
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3813

Bob says “Many Australians are worried, rightly, by the possibility that avian flu might infect the nation. They should be just as concerned about the disease of “mother earthism” ".
and so on

Among the comments we find
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 6 October 2005 10:52:43 PM
(check original for arguable context):
"All good points, Bob. In the late 90's I was invited to provide a private forest owners perspective to a CSIRO workshop on the impact of climate change on temperate forests. The group was advised that the impact of a 1 degree increase in temperature and a 10% reduction in average rainfall could be easily ascertained by inspecting a similar forest about 50km to the northwest of just about anywhere in eastern Australia."
(snip)
"When asked what management actions we could take in response to change, we advised that we would simply adjust the stocking rate of trees in the same way that nature does now. That is, instead of thinning a stand of regrowth back to 800 stems per hectare we would reduce this by 10% to 720 stems to ensure that each retained tree had the same water budget as before."
(snip)

Scientific American Editor John Rennie's remark about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" comes to mind: " … I am … reminded of H. L. Mencken's remark, "For every problem, there is a neat, simple solution, and it is always wrong." "

HIV/AIDS in South Africa shows the possible consequences when opinion leaders persist in championing scepticism in favour of timely action. From 1990 to 1998, the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in South Africa grew from 0.7% to about 22%. Meanwhile, Thabo Mbeki based South African HIV/AIDS policy on the work of Professor Peter Duesburg, rather than the broad consensus opinion.
http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2 shows the heroic sceptic personified.

We need both to question and to act. The HIV/AIDS epidemic grew exponentially while Mbeki promoted "debate”. Is this what you want to risk with the global environment?

A pithy quote, Sirvivor, but the general idea is that one is normally expected to come up with a detailed explanation of why the simple solution is supposedly wrong. But what did you do? You went on with a completely irrelevant tangent on South African Aids policy. You're not going to seriously hold that out as intelligent discourse, are you? Give us a break.

Sir Vivor is right. Whats going on? Politico's have chosen to ignore emperical evidence for anthropogenically driven climate change. In god and the emporers new clothes they trust, shoot the messenger and ignore the maggots in the pudding. Pity ape society and selfishness cant keep up with cerebal evolution.

Sams: Richard Castles wrote: "Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors," [FALSE - where did you get this from?]

Johnj: "Richard has made it clear his article didn't "focus on the climate science" [TRUE] He isn't interested in the science [FALSE ASSUMPTION AND A NON SEQUITUR], except to denigrate those who disagree with him." [FALSE - I can't find any comment that actually endeavours TO disagree with me, which I imagined would be arguing the case that sceptics should be shut out of debate. I haven't denigrated anybody, only tried to respond to the falsehoods thrown my way [Compare Sams's comment that some people are a "waste of oxygen".]

Sir Vivor, I apologise for not addressing your questions. My posting limits have unfortunately restricted me to correcting the inaccuracies of the posters above, which Perseus suggests do much to confirm the point of my article. I am interested in climate science but can't possibly cover everything here. I am, as my opinion stated, concerned about the reduction of the complexities and uncertainties of climate change to a singular, unquestionable, unverifiable truth (fundamentalism), and the censorship of those, particularly eminent people in the field, who maintain a sceptical view.

Richard, you have certainly rattled a few cages here, congratulations. I think "sams" has got the two of us confused, you would have thought he'd be a bit more polite about a recent NASA discovery, just makes my point, some people would rather do anything than think for themselves. Wonder if his PhD in physics is in fake metaphysics?
Richard42

Dear Mr Castles,
Re Perseus’ query, which begs a response:
"When asked what management actions we could take in response to change [global warming], we advised that we would simply adjust the stocking rate of trees in the same way that nature does now. That is, instead of thinning a stand of regrowth back to 800 stems per hectare we would reduce this by 10% to 720 stems to ensure that each retained tree had the same water budget as before."

Does Perseus have evidence this intervention is applicable to silviculture generally, for the increased average temperatures predicted by global warming?

If thinning trees on plantations by an extra 10%, for a "1 degree increase in temperature and a 10% reduction in average rainfall", is a mitigating response to global warming, then I commend his solution to the rest of the world. But what about the natural forest? Would it also need thinning, or would nature do that, then, too?

Thus Scientific American Editor John Rennie, on "The Skeptical Environmentalist”, quoting H. L. Mencken: "For every problem, there is a neat, simple solution, and it is always wrong." "

My underlying concern is that global warming requires multiple interventions, because of the risk of unpleasant surprises due to unexpected feedback patterns in a vast, complex, interlocked, nonlinear system of global flows of heat energy.

A current diagram of the earth’s Global Radiation Budget is shown on page 2 of “Determination of the Earth’s Radiation Budget from CERES”

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2006ScienceMeeting/presentations/Day01_Wed/S2_01_Loeb.pdf

It’s a shame there’s no linkage shown with the earth’s industrial energy budgets, because that’s where surplus energy is being added to the system, along with GHG’s such as CO2, as a result of global economic systems, which are growing, on the balance, exponentially - that is, faster and faster.

The principal author, Norman G Loeb, says on Page 14, that “Given climate variability, 15 to 20 years is required to first detect climate trends at cloud feedback level with 90% confidence”.

Mr Castles, do you think we should wait that long before deciding on a climate change strategy?

“In every relativist”, he says, “there is a fundamentalist about to be born, and in every fundamentalist there is a relativist waiting to be liberated”. Both forces, he maintains, are products of the pluralising effect of modernisation, and both serve only to shut down reasoned debate.”

Why can’t they encourage debate? Didn’t shut down a fundamentalist anti-green like Leigh did it? It just gave Leigh and co some ammunition. Pluralising affect - I would have thought would create more debate as the different ideas and positions come into discourse.

Why can't we just be ordinary folks who look around and see the smog getting thicker; the dams getting emptier; the weather getting more extreme; the sun burning harder on our skin and so on and think gee whizz: " Something needs to be done - maybe the conservationist movement wasn’t a communist plot to take over the world or slow down western development for the communists – maybe they had a point way back when the “born again fundamentalist” or “liberated relativists” fell foul of the pluralising affect of modernisation and shut down debate with anti-conservaton-measures fundamentalist essays like Richard Castles'?”

Hmmm - maybe it is just anti-green fundamentalists spinning their usual yarns to shut down debate. I thought political correctness did that. What- is the PC scam too passé and need a new demon? I been pluralised eeek! Born again! No liberated! Wait maybe we been borerated or liberborn!

At least we can have a guilt-free life now. We can rest easy as we waste our resources on warfare; we can mass produce juice guslers; we can cut down forests; we can forget about over population; we can ignore the consequence of our rationalising for the generations that follow us and so on.

Share prices still okay there guys. Greens still on the back foot. Shut them up good mate. Sweet. Nice one Richard. We all born yesterday - like hell.

Dear Mr Castles,

re [abridged]:
"I apologise for not addressing your questions.
... I am, as my opinion stated, concerned about the reduction of the complexities and uncertainties of climate change to a singular, unquestionable, unverifiable truth (fundamentalism), and the censorship of those, particularly eminent people in the field, who maintain a sceptical view."

And my apologies for not acknowledging your reply in my previous post.

But which "particularly eminent people in the field, who maintain a sceptical view", are being censored?
Who would you say is censoring them?

ronnie: "Why can't we just be ordinary folks who look around and see the smog getting thicker; the dams getting emptier; the weather getting more extreme; the sun burning harder on our skin and so on and think gee whizz: " Something needs to be done"

The thing is, ronnie, the perceptions of us ordinary folks are notoriously unreliable and easily tricked. There are thousands of psychology experiments that demonstrate this. I, personally, don't see the smog getting thicker or the weather getting more extreme, but that's not sufficient - whose perceptions should we trust. The point of science is to get out there with the measuring sticks and get the facts.

Sir Vivor,

I refer you to Brendan O'Neill's piece - linked from my opinion - which describes cases of censorship, or encouragement thereof, and some of the more radical suggestions on how to deal with those scientists who 'just don't get it'.

I also object to the immediate assumption that any person with any links to industry - ie. producing something of value to the community - are instantly dismissed and demonised as corrupted, as if environmentalists don't earn their own 'green'.

Yes Mr Castles

We have got "out there with the measuring sticks and we have got the facts". Scientific, analytical facts, Mr Castles - facts measured by accredited Australian laboratories!

And most of us refrain from making claims which we cannot substantiate.

Get out into the real world, Sir, ask for emissions reports from Departments of Environment, for large industries which pollute the planet, contaminate the ecology and get off scott free whilst leaving the masses to ingest chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polycyclic *aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, mercury, *benzene, hydrogen chloride, particulates, chromium 111 and V1, and the remainder of the 250 or so of VOCs and NOx. Understand that CO elevates methane and ozone in the atmosphere before converting to CO2 and so on.

One should actually research ones subject, Mr Castles, prior to banging ones gums! Understand the catalytic effects of these chemicals in the troposphere and stratosphere! Only then will one begin to comprehend the diabolical contributions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to an already heated planet! You will then perhaps better understand the difference between fundamentalists and realists!

Thank you Richard, for your lesson in TRUTH and FALSEHOOD. As a moral relativist I am happy agree with you..........that these are your opinions (subject to the usual caveats regarding the unreliability of language, the difficulty of electronic communication etc etc), but you will naturally understand my inability to share your opinions. This is all contingent on the existence of "Richard Castles", of which I have no objective proof (beyond the posts on this blog which could have been written by anyone). Please don't rush to reassure me of your existence, as this is a matter of no moment to me.

So I BELIEVE that for "Richard Castles" the whole issue is simply a stick to beat ideological foes with.

Happy now?

Dear RichardC,

O’Neill names Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth UK, among others:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_juniper/2006/11/post_572.html

"Climate change is taking place, so broadcasters should think twice before giving airtime to those who say otherwise."
Tony Juniper
November 3, 2006

Which in part says (but do read it all):

“ … a number of well-known climate change sceptics targeted this committee [House of Lords economic affairs select committee]. They included Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg and Julian Morris. The first three do not even live in the UK and why they would want to devote time from their intensely busy schedules to feed into an obscure House of Lords Committee beats me. Unless, that is, there was a coordinated effort to get something on the official record in the country that is moving fastest on climate change (politically speaking) to the effect that the need for action was at best uncertain. Once that was published they could then endlessly repeat these "official" doubts. That is what Lord Lawson is now doing.”

“The sceptics appear to be moving into a new phase, however. Perhaps aware that scientific uncertainty cannot be nurtured for much longer, they are now seeking to portray those who urge immediate action on climate change are some kind of religious fundamentalists. Lord Lawson said this week in a lecture about climate change to the Centre for Policy Studies that he feared the dangers of "eco-fundamentalism" and went on to link this alleged new hazard with "the threat we face from the supreme intolerance of Islamic fundamentalism". ”

“Lord Lawson's new line of thinking has already been picked up. Peter Hitchens, mild-mannered columnist at the Mail on Sunday, drew attention to this same "eco-fundamentalist" threat the next day on the BBC's Question Time. As he ranted and raved about society's mistaken emphasis on climate change, he spurted out the usual duff statistics and half-truths, including the claim that each time China opens a new power station more carbon dioxide is released than by the entire UK. This is complete and utter rubbish. But it still got broadcast.”

The point of science is to get out there with the measuring sticks and get the facts. So the Stern Report is a good thing then?

All those extra people and cars clogging up Brisbanes roads in say the last ten years have improved the air quality then. Fresh as ever ahy RC. You don't personnally see any smog or extremes in weather (and you conviently forgot to mention the almost empty dams and burning sunlight) - what couldn't find a scientific report to back up your statement. So much for science.

Anecdotal evidence is a good starting point in my books. When old timers who wouldn't have a bar of conservatonists start going on about how something must be wrong, it is really time for serious discusson. When reports like the Stern's come out and all the mounting evidence then it is time for action.

Your arguments work both ways R.C. Apart from the double speak, it was sensible article by the way.

"When old timers who wouldn't have a bar of conservatonists start going on about how something must be wrong, it is really time for serious discusson" Ronnie Peters I disagree , by that stage it is getting to late. As it is to arrest climate change we are at the boy with his finger in the hole in the dyke stage and even that may be too late as warming is accelerating. As for panaceas we can only offer those in at least one and a half to two centuries away any solution through our actions now. Either way life on earth will not return to a healthy equalibrium for many thousands of years.

Oh, Johnj, you really are tying yourself up in knots. You started by being quite convinced I had to be with the IPA, and now you're questioning my existence and saying my posts could be being "written by anyone". I don't want to get tangled up in your logic anymore, I might never get out.

dickie: "And most of us refrain from making claims which we cannot substantiate."

Still waiting to learn of my "lies and misinformation".

Mr Castles

My apologies for the delay in attending to your request where you ask that I support my statement that you have spread lies and misinformation.

a: You claim in your article: "Environmentalists are shrewd to label anyone who scrutinises the economics and science of climate modelling as "denialists" implying more than disagreement but a psychopathological resistance to the fearful truth."

b: "Yet reports such as Stern's are widely taken as gospel before they have been subjected to the intense scrutiny that the importance of the subject demands".

c: "Kofi Annan is the latest prominent figure to cast aspersions on the infidels".

1......Why do you presume that environmentalists invented the term "denialists"? Would you consider that this term was originally invented by journalists?

2......Who, and how many environmentalists implied that "denialists" have "a psychopathological resistance to the fearful truth"? Names please.

3......You imply that environmentalists do not scrutinise the "economics and science of climate modelling"? Please explain?

4......Please support your claim that all (and only) environmentalists take the Stern report as "gospel".

5......Why do you imply that Mr Annan considered the "denialists","infidels"? Isn't the word "infidels" your own description to emphasise the point that any opposition must be knee-capped?

6......Why do you pepper your report with nouns such as "bullies", "cult leaders", "despots"? Was the innunendo a feeble attempt in implying they are suitable descriptions of environmentalists? That was your intention was it not Mr Castles to feed these insults into the readers' psyche?

For an immediate contradiction to your accusations Mr Castles, you may peruse my post of 5/12 "Worst Drought in 40,000 Years" where I,
disputed a Stern recommendation. All of my research along with many other environmentalists, on atmospheric chemicals, was performed long before the Stern Report and the Al Gore movie was available.

So Mr Castles, it is clearly obvious to many of us that you have set out to bash the opposition and typically, you are, along with other unethical "denialists", sufficiently audacious to write an article on a subject where I suspect, you would fail an elementary test on the science!

Dear Mr Castles,

Brendan O’Neill’s remark about Tony Juniper deserves further consideration:

"More recently, Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth said broadcasters should think twice before allowing climate-change sceptics on air, because "allowing such misinformation to spread would cause harm". Again, the words of sceptics or doubters are depicted as a kind of poisonous force that is literally bad for us, and which must therefore be quarantined."

Looking at Tony’s entire article (placing the excerpt from my above post in its proper context), I find that Tony appears the relativist sceptic, and Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson appear more fundamentalist. - I don’t think Tony’s case helps Brendan Neill’s argument greatly.

You appear to be filtering the spectrum of arguments and participants in the global warming debate so as to picture it as struggle between fundamentalists and sceptics. I don’t believe two categories are adequate to resolve the issue.

The next item Brendan O’Neill mentions is:
Warm Words - How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?
Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit
AUGUST 2006
© ippr 2006

The authors provide a number of categories useful for classifying arguments, for and against, in the global warming debate. It’s worth a look for its analysis of the debate, not just for its recommendations, which Mr O’Neill finds alarming:

“ "the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument but in effect to develop and nurture a new 'common sense'” ”.

See http://www.linguisticlandscapes.co.uk/discourse.htm for the “Warm Words” analysis, which might add (at least the title of “comic nihilist”) to your nomenclature.

I'm rashly guessing that the main difference between alarm and acceptance depends upon what the reader believes to be “common sense”.

My experience of common sense is that it is more likely to be based on an emotional response than a rational argument, and when “argued reasonably”, common sense soon gets lost in the undergrowth of details, or else degenerates from light to heat.

It’s common sense to me that feelings are irrational. Does that make me sceptic, or fundamentalist?

Richard, my nonsense post served two purposes. Firstly to amuse myself and secondly to see if I could draw a response. Successful on both counts. Of course much of what gets posed on OLO is nonsense.

TIME TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE?

Richard, if you have stock in any of the retrogressive US-linked energy companies, I suggest you examine either your portfolio. See the Washington Post item below, which mentions shareholder action compelling US energy companies toward emissions-trading schemes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.html
and the "view all comments" at the bottom of the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006112401361

Remembering that (for example) Duke Energy has Australian investments, it may be worth you doing an item on ethical investment.

And have a look at these two items, concerning Brazil. Is it possible that the same interest groups who brought you “climate scepticism” and “eco-fundamentalists” will take their CO2-spewing investment and development opportunities to the developing and third world?

I expect it will be easily as easy to show an offshoring of CO2 production by traditional energy producers as it is for you to show the perfidy of Global Warming Alarmist Fundamentalists.

And see:
Latin American Energy Issues (in English)
http://www.temasactuales.com/temasblog/?p=62

Despite recent lobbying and some governmental support, a recently adopted Brazilian energy policy is centred on growth in demand rather than conservation of supply:

“The principal theme of the plan can be found in its subtitle: "Strategy for Expanding Supply." The government proposes a huge increase in supply, arguing that its scenarios forecast a tripling of current consumption by 2030.”

A very interesting proposal was put to the Brazilian Government by the Brazilian WWF, and is well worth a look:

http://assets.wwf.org.br/downloads/brazilpowerswitchstudy_1.pdf

For example, Brazilians use on-line shower water heaters which are very cheap, but which are estimated to commit 100 times their purchase price in peak power electricity generation capacity.

It seems to me that, rather than deal with smart conservation strategies, the government wants to build nuclear electricity plants to assure base load.

Where will they get those radioactive contraptions from? Is the Brazilian nuclear industry entirely homegrown? Is it Brazilian coffee we smell there, or something from north of the equator?

Richard Castles wrote:

"""
Sams: Richard Castles wrote: "Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors," [FALSE - where did you get this from?]
"""

My apologies, I misread another Richard's byline in the above as yours (use a search and you will find it). However, I still stand by my other comments though. You are at odds with the vast majority of climatologists, thousands of them, who actually know what they are talking about.

Johnj, thank you for acknowledging your nonsense.

dickie, I would be happy to try to answer some of your questions, and some are relevant and reasonable, but none of them demonstrates lying on my part. Without a retraction, I don't feel compelled to respond.

Sams, you say thousands of climatologists are at odds with me. Do you mean they believe sceptics should be silenced? You don't seem to be addressing the content of my article.

colinsett queries why this piece is categorized under Environment, not Religion. I am inclined to agree.

Over and out on this one.

Richard Castels wrote: "Sams, you say thousands of climatologists are at odds with me. Do you mean they believe sceptics should be silenced? You don't seem to be addressing the content of my article."

No one has been "silenced", as is evident in the very forum. Almost all sceptics that disagree with the mainstream scientific community are completely wrong, something the habitual sceptics seem to overlook on a regular basis. Usually they only notice that very rare cases where the sceptic is real genius (in the literal sense) that has outsmarted the scientists and happens to be right.

People in this country are free to be sceptical, but if lots of others disagree strongly with them and form opinions about their character, then they shouldn't be surprised.

Mr Castles remains defiant that he did not lie or spread information about environmentalists in his article.

Worse, whilst I have responded to his request to justify my claims that he did, he insists that I retract my accusations but is unable to justify his spurious attacks on environmentalists. Guess that's one way of "saving face!"

By joves Mr Castles, if any of your future written inaccuracies incur litigation, I suggest you get yourself a top silk! Even, then your legal representative would be hard pressed to influence the bench in your favour!

When have skeptics been banned? It is a defence skeptics have from skeptics skeptical of skeptics. What is being scrutinised is the concept of global warming as a philosophy.It is afterall the age of relativism - post modernist drivel to allow the possibility that the superstitious are not paranoid but are prophets.The data which has demonstrated climate change (CC) to not only be real but anthropogenically driven has not been addressed. The connection between cause and effect is often over looked by climate change skeptics who seek either the flat earth explanation that there is no climate change or the pied piper explanation that there is climate change but its through magic or voodoo, not pollution.
The question I would like to ask of Richard and CC skeptics is what is your motivation? Because if I had to answer in the absence from an answer I could only assume it is some sort of ego trip, to come up with the cork screw theory that nobody came up with and to be a science hero.
Science is abandoned by CC skeptics , there will be no Nobel prizes in their xmas stockings.
I would like to add we should not blame the skeptics for the choices our governments have made in ignoring anthropogenic driven CC over the past 25 years. It was/is their choice their incompetence to ignore the causes of CC given the real information that was at their disposal for at least the last 20 years.

Here's the latest bit of trivia:

PM Howard has come under fire in his selection of the 12 person carbon emissions trading task force.

The committee comprises of Qantas chair, BHP director, Foreign Affairs secretary, Treasury secretary, representatives from BHP Billiton, Xstrata and Alumina, secretary of the PM and cabinet etc.

And not an environmentalist in sight nor even an atmospheric scientist! I think that's what one would call a "stacked" task force!

Which leads me to conclude that: "The more things change, the more they remain the same".

Polluter pays? I think not!

Dear Mr Castles,

How does your fundamentalist-relativist dichotomy apply to PM Howard, in his appointment of members of a Carbon Emissions Task Force?

Certainly the National Farmers Federation feels left out - I doubt that they would go so far as to allege any form of censorship in the PM's actions, though it might be argued that his fait accompli has prevented important stakeholders from having their say.
(see http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1809769.htm)

As for myself, I like the comparison of the PM to the Easter Bunny.
Say this mythical creature is given the job of solving the problem of famine in Africa: I would not be surprised if he came up with a solution involving lots of chocolate and hardboiled eggs, to be delivered at the end of Lent - - -

Farmers would be an obvious choice to leave out because they are the first victims of climate change.