People who call those who question the man-made theory and, therefore, also question man’s ability to overcome climate change ‘sceptics’ or ‘deniers’ can be called ‘orthodox’, but the real and straight forward descriptions of these slaves to majority opinion are ‘ignorant’ and ‘non-thinkers’.

People who go along with the man-made theory of climate change, and approve of the ridiculous plans to limit CO2 emissions, at great cost, are lazy people who lay back and have their minds made up for them by vociferous lobbyists – some scientists, extremist environmentalists, and the media.

There has been enough harping and carping on CO2 for long enough now to have these sheep believe that people are responsible for climate change. These same bull-at-a-gate people are also deaf to people who say, “Climate change is real. It is natural, and we must learn to adapt to it. Forget controlling it or overcoming it.”

People holding the ‘orthodox’ view of climate change are fanatics(fundamentalists to the authors) grimly defending their ‘faith’ against the infidels. People might eventually catch on to this, but by then it will be too late: our economy will be wrecked by the Rudd Government, and the climate will not be affected by the proposed ju ju.

I have previously stated my position on climate change and I don't intend to get into it relating to this article.

But, everyone should be a sceptic. It encourages vigorous debate on issues.Without scepticism the norm would never be challenged. Scepticism is part of an enquiring mind and helps the learning process. Without it, we would not make leaps forward in technology, philosophy or any other area.

The problem with scepticism comes when it is based on flawed information. This might not become apparent for some time as an argument evolves. But when it does become apparent, a true sceptic will acknowledge this and accept the result. This may take an awful long time as the level of information required might be great indeed.

Perhaps the best example of sceptics who have long-since passed their use-by date are those who still believe the earth is flat. The evidence is extemely clear that it is not, but they still persist

You skeptics are idiots, how can you not see what the rest of us know as a fact. You guys need to just go stand in a corner and not say anything. How dare you guys think that we are wrong. Our model based on out assumption are definitely correct. We are correct, how dare you be any different

The world is definitely FLAT

oh dear climate change is a buzz word
is it GLOBAL COOLING [or global warming ]

using the term change is an each way bet

when it rains too fast [or gets dry too fast its climate change ?
but if its drought its warming?
if its floods of hail or snow its cooling?

but think of the HAArp [we know it better as the 'over the horison ' radar ]That is able to 'change' the climate
or is spraying chemicals [rain 'making']
is this climate change?

or clear felling for-rest [world wide] climate changing?

we fall for buzz words
that find ways to get more from us [so more goes to them

we accept terorist ,CLIMATE CHANGE ,WAR non drug users ,war on anything
see the buzz words

the long ignored left has now got funding [to push one of the adgenda's [but its to get a new tax burdon upon the allready overtaxed]

has the drug war won the war on drugs?

has stripping our human rights saved us from [govt] [or bankers] oppression [and intrusion] into our personal affairs

think of the xray machine [yet the other egsisting sysytems were working just fine
[so why waste more cash on a machine, that vieuws our bodies in teqnicolour detail

[depite govt failing to define terroism ,or global warming or cooling
is eco 'change' terror?

or teror
the means to tax us further

or climate change only to bring in the new carbon credit controled and gifted to the WORST poluters ,and the credit goes to the wolds bankers.
we just get the tax
[get it ?]

Personally, I call myself a climate "cynic", rather than "skeptic". Purely because, in the context of climate change debate, "skeptic" has become an epithet.

Otherwise, I believe that healthy skepticism is the only rational foundation for thought.

By "cynic" I mean that I acknowledge that climate change is happening; the earth's climate has always changed, dramatically, and always will. Where I am a cynic is in regard to alleged human causes of climate change, and the alarmism surrounding it.

Life will adapt and survive, as it always has. The earth will be very different in the future, as it was very different in the past. But just because it will be different to what we humans have grown comfortable with over the last 10, 000 years, doesn't mean that "the planet is in peril".

According to interviews given to journalists in Paris by the Chair of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri, in February 2003, the use of different measures of a country’s GDP ‘does not make a difference when looking at growth rates. It is like measuring rise in temperature in centigrade or Fahrenheit, it makes no difference to the growth rate itself.’ In the course of criticising David Henderson and me for arguing that exchange rate-based conversions of GDP are invalid:

‘Pachauri recalled that some centuries ago, the London-based Flat-Earth Society used to have several thousand members, who believe the earth is a slice. The Flat-Earth Society has only a handful of members today, and they continue to meet every year, to assert that the earth is indeed a slice’, he said. ‘It is the same with climate change – you may deny it, but it is a fact.’

Ten months later, at the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Milan, Dr Pachauri issued a press statement on behalf of the IPCC alleging that ‘In recent months some disinformation has been spread questioning the IPCC scenarios’ and referring to David Henderson and me as ‘so called “two independent commentators”’. The statement contended that ‘the economy does not change by using a different metrics (PPP or MEX), in the same way that the temperature does not change if you switch from degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit’ ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/pr-08december2003.pdf ).

In its recent report Australia’s Low Carbon Future, the Australian Treasury takes the opposite view:

‘The choice of measurement method [between ‘PPP’ and ‘MER’] significantly affects the validity of economic growth projections and energy use and, hence, projections of future climate change’, and therefore ‘All gross world product (GWP) and regional comparisons of gross domestic product (GDP) levels and growth rates in this report are reported in 2005 US dollar purchasing power parity terms...’ (p. 19).

I look forward to a new press release from the IPCC accusing the Australian Treasury of spreading disinformation, and to an interview from its recently re-elected Chairman likening the Treasury authors to members of the Flat-Earth Society.

Name calling in any reasoned debate is unhelpfull. As is using emotive terms such as "anxiety", "rhetorical smears" and "bullying" for arguments you disagree with.

It's been fascinating over the last year or two to see the wheels starting to fall off the global warming bandwagon. I expect to see many more articles like this as proponents of anthropomorphic global warming begin to prepare themselves a soft landing when they leap off the decks. When a conservative mass-market publication like the UK Daily Express (the self-proclaimed 'World's Greatest Newspaper') starts to cast doubts on climate modelling then surely the end cannot be far away.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

The sad thing is that we will never get back the time, money and energy that has been wasted on defending the indefensible and preparing for a non-existent disaster.

Gentle men (authors)
As far as it goes (albeit slightly weighted to one side) the plea for a rational approach is well noted and should be noted by BOTH Sides.
I would make a few aditional points
• Extreme views either way are currently equally unfounded.
• There is a big difference between an “expert in the field’s” educated guess and an “arm chair theorist’s” opinion. Most of us, including me fall into the latter. So it might be prudent to remember that when expressing those opinions.

I’m a little uncomfortable by your usage of the term ‘orthodoxy’ in the context of the overall debate. As it implies Status Quo and is often projected as supporting “do nothing” or “business as usual “.

Without getting into the debate all three seems to make the implicit assumption nothing needs to change, a tendentious assertion at best. Akin to the man jumping off the top of the empire state building and repeating after passing each floor “So far so good Where’s the problem?” It also implies that we are in a resource infinite world one where the environment is irrelevant to human existence.

The need for commenters to be more circumspect with their comments is evident by some posts to this topic.
One could be excused in thinking without reading the article that it was yet another blurb on “Global Warming” (sic) when in reality it was about HOW to discuss the issue.
Then again some don’t let relevance get in the way of an unsupported opinionated rave.

Skepticism is the product of thinking. It comes from curiosity and desire for understanding. Its a bit ironic to thwart something as natural as contemplation in the name of saving nature.

Still, who needs thinking in a credential crazy world of ready-made factoids.

Vigourous discussion about complex issues of far reaching import can be a useful thing, when its done rationally and honestly, which is not really the norm when something becomes policised.

It also helps to be cautious about the big decisions of state, lest they slip in some back-door nonsense that bites us all on he bum down the road.

Generally with this stuff, l tend to follow the power (money and regulation). Carbon taxation is a potential windfall of exponential proportions. Not to mention another tool in the box for the politics of fear, guilt and control.

It was only ever those who were gullible or had a political agenda that was going to fall for gw. That covers many posters from OLO. I wonder if we will be reverting back to a global cooling scare. I finally find something I totally with agree John. J. on. The GW High Priests have won their awards, made ridiculous predictions, become rich and have made their many pseudo science followers look stupid.

A rule of thumb for assessing anyone who calls themselves a "sceptic" in whatever field----they are usually and almost inevitably dogmatic true believers who use the word sceptic as a gambit to add "legitimacy" to their own dogmatism(s).

I have just listen to an interview with Prof Bob Carter, and by the sounds of it the Kevin 747, and Wong are sending us down a very expensive path.

From what I understand from the interview is that we are now in a period of global cooling, and we are going to pay through the nose in order to keep warm. Because keeping warm means producing more CO2.

Here is something for the sceptics to ponder and if they are convinced that the answer to any of the questions is indeed no, do as Monbiot suggests. It would be appreciated too if the authors, or whoever else does find him/herself in a position to make a claim on the Noble Prize Committee, would provide this forum with a preview of their scientific documentation in support of their findings.

I, myself would be very pleased to learn that the world could continue on its present course without having to worry about what seems to me a civilization (as we know it) threatening process.

I quote from George Monbiot's book "Heat".

"Questions to ask of climate change sceptics…

Does the atmosphere contain CO2?

Does atmospheric CO2 raise the average global temperature?

Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more CO2?

Have human activities led to a net emission of CO2?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, suggest the person that he/she put themselves forward for a Nobel Prize as they will have turned science on its head."

It should be noted too that if Garnaut had his way the Emissions Trading Scheme would be revenue neutral in that that ALL revenue from the sale of carbon trading rights would be pumped back into the economy in ways that would help enhance the goal of reducing Australia's emissions or assist effected entities to make the transition to a less carbon intensive economy.

Any comments?

(Note: - The government's Green Paper differs from Garnaut in that it proposes to spend a lot of the the ETS revenue by giving it right back to the main polluters (the coal-fired power stations) so they stand to make a substantial windfall profit out of the scheme. This proposal is indeed ridiculous.)

Kulu - something for you to ponder, even if all those points are true, so what? It's like trying to prove or disprove god exists or doesn't. It still makes no difference to the world we live in.

We have to adapt regardless, even if we stopped creating any CO2 by any means at all, the Climate, which we do not control - and that's the point I'm making by the way, will continue to change whichever way it does.

BTW - your point "Does atmospheric CO2 raise the average global temperature?" is the hinge of your and Monbiot's entire argument, but there is no Factual Proof that this happens, there is modeling that makes it highly probable, but that's not proof - there is no proof. What you are proposing is a hypothesis and challenging "skeptics" to prove it otherwise; well that's just tricky and a typical theological argument.

"Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more CO2?” no one knows do they, you have been lead by Monbiot's logic to believe this, again you are asking “skeptics” to prove it is not true, without providing any proof it is true – god argument again.

Try harder! Don't just read stuff by fanatics who make their living from selling their ideas without questioning it, read other stuff as well, counter arguments help you learn.

dear kulu
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

>>''the sum over all man-made greenhouse gases, weighted by their global warming potential over the next 100 years.

This consists of 72% carbon dioxide, 18% methane, 9% nitrous oxide and 1% other gases.

Lower panels show the comparable information for each of these three primary greenhouse gases, with the same coloring of sectors as used in the top chart.<<

Segments with less than 1% fraction are not labeled''
[but clearly there are 7 unnamed gasses
what is their potency
[not end post point re methane]

from
http://21cvision.blogspot.com/2008/08/global-warming-greenhouse-gas.html
>>Greenhouse gases are essential to maintaining the temperature of the Earth; without them the planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable.
However, an excess of greenhouse gases can raise the temperature of a planet to lethal levels, as on Venus where the 90 bar partial pressure of carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes to a surface temperature of about 467 °C (872 °F).<<

[note use of 'greenhouse gases
[then full focus anmd blame upon co2

continued>>Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and industrial processes, which currently result in CO2 levels of 380 ppmv in the atmosphere.

The most important greenhouse gases are:

* water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
* carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
* methane, which causes 4–9%
* ozone, which causes 3–7%...<<

note the co2 top =72 percent co2
note bottum
9-26 %
so which one is true?

how many breen house gasses are WORSE than co2?

taking the lower number see the space between 4-9%
[times 10 because it is 10 times worse than co2

then 40 to 90 % is caused by methane
[from back yard compost bins and doggie doo]

The flat earther stuff is funny. They obviously don't use GPS to get to their meetings. I imagine they are a bunch of quirky British aristocrats having a bit of a laugh. On the other hand, the Gaia stuff sounds really kooky, like something from the pen of L.Ron Hubbard.

Climate change happens all the time.

This planet goes through a natural cycle of climate change, from summer to winter every year.

The climate has changed on this planet, even before the advent of us mere mortals.

Article in smh by Michael Duffy this morning, worth reading.

Banjo, what do you make of this?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxtxEnGYqzX_bBu1CyVsCfx9W9dA

JamesH, would like your comment on the following statement (or this Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704 2008 - it is not a populist media paper article).

“Water vapour is the atmospheric gas that collectively has the greatest greenhouse effect on climate, although it does not directly instigate warming or cooling trends, because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere varies only in response to temperature change.

Instead, water vapour only amplifies temperature trends being caused by other factors such as atmospheric CO2 concentration or Earth's albedo. The extent to which humidity changes in response to temperature variation is therefore a key parameter in global climate models, because that quantity determines the strength of the associated warming or cooling.

Dessler et al. present satellite data from 2003 to 2008 which show that models have gotten that relationship correct, and that relative humidity is effectively constant at any given temperature. Thus, the temperature increases predicted by global models are virtually guaranteed to be several degrees Celsius by the year 2100."

Short term politics does not entertain cyclical long term weather events, As this drought was forecast some 50years ago by Indigo Jones,rip.

There might be an element of fundamentalism amongst ardent climate-change advocates. But I don’t think that it is particularly strong, at least not compared to continuous economic growth fundamentalism.

Just about every single business person, economist and politician at all levels has for decades been just totally intolerant of the view that we need to cap economic growth, and the population growth and increasing levels of consumerism that feed it …and the grave impacts that all of this is having on our biosphere.

This is pretty strongly connected with climate change, or at least with the rapidly escalating level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The orthodoxy of unquestioned continuous growth and of dismissing anyone who dares to question it is humanity’s biggest mistake. This is VASTLY more important than any perceived or real orthodoxy amongst committed climate-change activists or other environmentalists.

Still, in this day and age, when it is utterly obvious that the level of human impact on the planet is far too great and still rapidly increasing, there are scant few people who are willing to stand up and espouse and end to expansionism.

The greens, by and large, MISS this huge part of the story on climate change and other enormous environmental issues! In fact THIS is by far the greens’ biggest failing…NOT (any perceived or real) fundamentalism on climate change or any other issue or any lack of tolerance of dissenting views.

I think the authors are quite off-track with the gist of this article. I also notice the same sort of misguided focus in some of their previous articles.

Ludwig, I couldn't agree more - well, just a little bit more:-)

Congrats on your 3rd!

I could hardly agree less.

3rd what? Not child I hope, given your views on population growth.

There's a lot of passive voice in that article, and unnamed "activists and the media" who, crowned and sceptred, command mild-mannered dissenters to silence.

Go on, name names, show us some evidence (inarticulate posters above notwithstanding). Has *any* representative and articulate activist or journalist actually used the word "sceptic" incorrectly? Has *any* activist even *tried* to shut down debate, let alone using such a mild word? Has *anyone* succeeded in silencing critics on this subject?

Self-respecting activists, upset over wilful denial of basic evidence and basic physics, are far more likely to accuse sceptics of "denialism" than of being sceptics. "Sceptic" is a flattering (sometimes accurate, sometimes not so much) self-description of those who "buck the orthodoxy" and choose to ignore evidence, quibble over details or adduce magical theories of cosmic ray cloud formation.

It's quite alright to be sceptical, especially about policy (which is always a matter of opinion, "evidenced-based policy" notwithstanding), describe them that way is hardly to "damn" them, and it certainly doesn't silence them.

In a democracy, no-one gets freedom from public criticism of their opinions!

--

Oh and "one under god" -- Water vapour is indeed the most significant greenhouse gas. Its concentration in most of the atmosphere (anywhere reasonably wet) is in direct proportion to temperature. Warm the air and it carries more water. Cool it, and watch it rain. Water vapour responds to temperature-altering effects (the jargon term is "forcings") but is not one itself.

The real key to global climate change is the consumption of energy.To become a leader in climate change many people have to come to reality that soon you and i have to pay to save the climate through consumption.If science can build a motor then it can build a air plant that can filter the air from carbons and other chemicals at the publics cost .I am willing to have $5 dollars placed on my rates if it meant fresh air machines could filter the air before it too late .David.

xoddam,

You ask for names. I can start by referring you to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/22/aclimateofcensorship

It mentions:

- British foreign secretary Margaret Beckett likening climate sceptics to terrorists, implying that they should be denied media time;

- Columnist Mark Lynas, who claimed that sceptics "will one day have to answer for their crimes" in some sort of international court. That is, for thought crimes.

- An American 60 Minutes producer who put a ban on climate sceptics on the basis that "There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible."

- Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth who suggested broadcasters think twice before allowing climate-change sceptics on air, because "allowing such misinformation to spread would cause harm."

To these, I might add Clive Hamilton's recent attack on OLO.

As this current article points out, the term covers a broad range of views on differing aspects of a complicated issue. Having anybody appoint themselves with the authority to decide who should be labelled this way, and/or censored, and/or tried in court for their views is not a matter to be taken lightly.

Thanks Q&A.

Fungochumley; “3rd what? Not child I hope…”

Ooow crikey no. Horrible little rugrats! Nope I haven’t got any of them, thank goodness ( :>)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2258

So just what is it that you disagree with?

rpg,

The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is that the answer to each of Monbiot,s four questions is yes. (See my earlier post.)It is ridiculous to ask for proof each time a scientifically recognized fact is quoted in support of an argument. I know that Einstein's general theory of relativity is true as no doubt do you but I bet you can't prove it without a great deal of effort (and feel no need to). I certainly am no atmospheric scientist nor mathematician and cannot personally prove Einstein,s theory nor how CO2 absorbs the sun's heat that is reflected back from the earth's surface.

If a sceptic or two with the necessary qualifications were to prove that any of the answers to Monbiot's questions was no (in a pier reviewed paper) I would certainly pay attention.

Fully agree with the OP. Whether anthropogenic catastrophic global warming is real or not, the increasingly fanatical manner in which AGW skeptics are demonised, often via thinly veiled attempts to liken them to Holocaust deniers, is alarming. It calls to mind historical persecution of skeptical minority views by the established group-think, such as the persecution of Galileo by the RCC. Such desperation is born from AGW advocates having jumped the gun and declared the science "settled", when it is not. From such a position there are only two choices when faced with continued and valid opposition- either swallow a little humble pie and step back to a more tenable position, admitting that we understand much less about the workings of the Earth and solar system's climate systems than we have so far pretended, or shout down, drown out, and demonise any opposition with wild-eyed zealotry.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then skepticism is the father of science. Without it, we'd still be sacrificing virgins to please the weather gods.

This whole article is no more than fluff and puff, unfounded opinion and assertion parading as genuine scepticism.
It's not the abuse of the term sceptic by Greens that have given the word it's negative connotatiions, it's labelling the unscientific and false opininion that there is significant scientific doubt about climate science as "scepticism" that has devalued it - and the author of this article are complicit in that.
The science <i>is</i> sound, with every peak science body, every university and national science academy, every institution that studies science concluding the science is sound. Scepticism has been applied professionally, with vigour, by people who understand the maths, the physics, the chemistry, over many years in the process of becoming mainstream science. The questioning of data, methodology and projection is already done, professionally, prior to the IPCC's reports being released. So we have the abundance of expert testimony verses shouting from the back of the courtroom after the verdict's handed down.
Concluding that climate change is only the normal vagaries of a complex climate system requires a lack of accurate knowledge of what science tells us about it or requires a belief that the scientists are wrong. Insisting the losers of the science debate be treated as if their opinions be counted as equal to that of the winners - or superior to the winners is a recipe for bad judgement, wrong headed decisions, policy based on opinion, on the worst available knowledge not the best.If Green policy is based on mainstream science, that's not irrational and good on the Greens, but this is way past being a Green issue. Basing policy on what the losers of the climate science debate say, in direct contradiction of mainstream science is irrational and dangerous to our future.
The authors deserve to be called deniers, deserve derision for wanting the future climate of the planet based on the opinions of losers. For falsely labelling unfounded opinion as scepticism and the conclusions of the professional users of scepticism as orthodox I think they deserve to be called much worse.

Ludwig,
I agree in context with your overall analysis. I have come to similar conclusions.
The problem is as Machiavelli said “politics is the art of the possible”. Politics in this context has a more biological meaning.

The problem with pop analysis is that it ignores the biological human element; it tends to assumes one size comprehension or capacity and that the topic can be taken in isolation.

We are still ultimately bound by our animal (biological) natures.
At some (individually varying) point reality tends to become counter productive in that it is perceived to invalidate the individual’s understanding of their place in the world (their reality). Dawkins (“The Selfish Gene”) might see this as the genes protecting themselves.

I have this theory that there is an inverse relationship between intellectual validity of a position and the number of the individuals involved coming to that position. Tragically this often interpolates as the lowest common denominator. I think this is what is at play in the ‘political’ party of the Greens. Too radical (too much change) and they spook the horses. Hence I distrust ALL dogma becase of its fixed position.

Personally I factor is in my hope that the incremental/long-term approach will gather momentum in time to make a meaningful difference. Sadly I think is the best option available.
Rational discourse is a fundamental step in the right direction. I suggest you consider the ABC’s “Unleashed” site.

Cheers
Examinator. Ant.

we have long been told the market can make its own corrections

it is doudtfull that any of the revered projections factored in the ressesion for egsample
[like china shutting down half of its steel mills as announced a few weeks ago ,[after the modeling]

every ressesion percentage cuts down the possability of MORE carbon being produced[dead factories dont consume carbon]

the affect of industry closing will be a factor

and clearly any previous measures [as programed into the computer in the peak times will NOT be returning the truth's [reality] this ressesion will soon reveal.

the info this new global tax is built upon is flawed

it has its roots in a lie
then made worse by decption and collusive un-constitutional treason's

no matter how many propagandists try to infur consensus there is none

noting even JUST one not agreeing is enough to prove CONcensus a a lie
that there is a concensus [is an extreemist statement of no validity

the majority does not mean they are right

[please note the special affects we get FROM computers
computers like treason can make the unbelievable SEEM real]

science cant even correctly [faultlessly predict rain today
we cannot expect them to correctly predict carbon tomorrow]

think why you need to believe carbon tax is going to make a spec of difference
[cash injections allways just deepen the problem]

this is a GLOBAL cash injection
[think who gets the money]

or at least reveal its for buisness not the planet

Hi Richard,

I stand corrected on the inaccurate use of the word "sceptic" where something altogether stronger and more negative is intended. I'm all in favour of healthy scepticism myself. It's not surprising, given that AGW denialists are self-described as mere sceptics, that some of their critics have fallen into the trap of using the same word.

But I must defend the practice of activists (or even politicians) calling on editors and producers to be "responsible" by withholding their endorsement from counterfactual and counterproductive opinion. This is not censorship; censorship is when an authority shuts down all expressions of an opinion.

Consider classified material of a military nature. *That* is censored. Publicising the presence of certain significant (eg. royal) individuals in a theatre of war is merely irresponsible. But publication of opinions supporting or opposing a country's military policy is not, even if prime ministers and patriots sharply rebuke those who disagree with them.

The useful idiots who have campaigned vociferously to discredit the science of AGW in the public mind have bought fifteen years or more of political inaction in some countries (remember that in 1993 it was the Liberal Party of Australia's policy to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% in 20 years). The risk of dire human suffering as a consequence is real. A bit of hyperbole likening the "junk science" propagandists to warmongers or to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is appropriate in the circumstances.

As OLO itself demonstrates, in a milieu as free as ours it is always possible to publish dissent, no matter how it rails against orthodox opinion or fundamental physical laws. Hamilton's "attack" of a few months back was pretty well justified, though I must admit I regret his decision to disengage (though I've managed to find better things to do with my own time for the last eleven months). I suppose he felt his name conferred undeserved legitimacy on the articles appearing alongside his own, or feared that some of the aura of kooky controversialism rubbed off the other way.

Hamilton notwithstanding, thanks for your constructive engagement.

“it isn’t necessary to dismiss the IPCC position as worthless propaganda to entertain alternative viewpoints”

How magnanimous.

I suppose we will simply have to wait for the North pole to melt entirely before sceptics decide to do anything at all.

Q&A

this is not logical

<Water vapour is the atmospheric gas that collectively has the greatest greenhouse effect on climate, although it does not directly instigate warming or cooling trends, because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere varies only in response to temperature change. >

One can have temperatures greater than 40 C and there is almost zero humidity, conversely the temp can be only 32 C and almost 100% humidity.

The greater the water vapour the greater the humidity, water vapour eventually cools and then precipitates as rain or snow.

Once humidity reaches a certain point evaporation almost ceases.

through out history there are geological records of glaciers advancing and retreating, even in Australia there is evidence that glaciers once existed, there is also evidince that Australia was much wetter than it is now.

The climate change alarmists seem to me to ignore the fact that this planet has gone through cycles of cooling and heating long before humans ever walk to earth.

Xoddam,

In announcing the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee described Gore as ‘probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted’ in the ‘struggle against climate change.’ And, without a hint of irony, they named him as ‘for a long time ... one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians.’

In fact, Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to WRECK the prospects of effective international action on climate change. As leader of the US delegation at Kyoto, he announced on 8 December 1997 that, following discussions with President Clinton, he was ‘instructing our delegation right now to show increased negotiating flexibility, if a comprehensive plan can be put in place, one with realistic targets and timetables, market mechanisms, and the meaningful participation of key developing countries.’ In that spirit, he urged the assembled heads of state and distinguished delegates to ‘transcend our differences and commit to secure our common destiny: a planet ... whose people everywhere are able to reach for their God-given potential.’

Three days after delivering this sermon to his international audience, Gore declared for US domestic consumption that "As we [the US] said from the very beginning, we [the US] will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort..." Of course, Gore knew full well that the circumstances that might have led the agreement to be submitted for ratification would not arise. His cynicism was breathtaking.

Professor Ian Lowe, now President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, observed this charade at first hand. Writing in the New Scientist (3 January 1998), Lowe said that ‘the issue is far more complicated than might be expected by hurried judgements and from agreements hammered out in the middle of the night by non-scientists at international conferences’ (p. 45). It is simplistic to blame unnamed ‘useful idiots’ for the subsequent policy failures

xoddam,

Perhaps I am failing to understand you, but there seems to be some confusing doublespeak there. You thank me for constructive engagement, whilst seeming to advocate that my opinion should be withheld - except, perhaps, in kooky niches like OLO which give people the freedom to dissent, something I thought Clive Hamilton was passionate about. I don't understand your differentiation between "withholding" opinion and censoring it. Who decides what is "counterfactual" or counter-productive if there is no open discussion, or right to argue the facts, especially in regard to science where vast unknowns are acknowledged even by the IPCC. Was Tim Flannery's opinion referring to the roofs of 10-storey buildings being lapped by rising seas - that is by levels around 50 times greater than the IPCC's own projections - factual and productive? Would I be labelled an evil denialist to disagree with this projection. I'm quite happy for, say, flat-earthers to be given a space to argue their case, because I believe their views could be easily countered by an opposing argument, complete with pictures from outer space. I don't feel threatened by them and could easily weigh up the evidence. The media is packed with stuff that I regard as baloney. Some say that God cannot be factually proved, which is the essence of faith, so are you also wishing to censor religious expression?

cont.

I hope you will allow me to quote from the opinion I cited:

"As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, which was published in 1859 and remains essential reading for anyone who believes in free speech: "Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action. On no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right."

Mill would have had little truck with the notion that manmade climate change is such an established fact that it should be above rigorous debate. Describing his age as one also "terrified at skepticism", he wrote: "The claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society. There are, it is alleged, certain beliefs so useful, not to say indispensable to wellbeing, that it is [the] duty of governments to uphold those beliefs ... It is often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what such men would wish to practise."

I repeat that what is labelled scepticism or denialism, as the authors argue, is in relation to many aspects of the issue, making censorship potentially and dangerously far-reaching. Finally, the acknowledgement of hyperbole, however appropriate in your view, is in some measure an admission of untruthfulness, ie. "counterfactual".

hi guys, im a local portrait, wedding & contemporary photographer & Artist In Manly Sydney Australia. Over the last 17 years I have taken many photos of families on the beach & even Slam volley ball events.
One thing I have noticed over the last 10 years is the water rising , enough to actually stop 4 sets of nets being erected for volley ball games as the beach is no longer straight & wide enough. This has obly happened over the last 2 years ! I have some images at my website www.actionmasterphoto.com.au under sport & Art work. If visual evidence keeps you "rational" then I believe you are being ignorant to what's really happening & to many, unfortunately, ignorance is bliss I guess.

The real orthodoxy here, that relies on unfounded belief and no science, is the belief that nothing people can do will effect the climate. It has no scientific basis but it is belief in that orthodoxy that the authors are appealing to, not healthy scepticism. They have completely inverted the truth by falsely casting belief/faith in that orthodoxy as scepticism and casting conclusions of ongoing scientific inquiry, of conclusions based on expert knowledge, as conforming to orthodoxy.
The suggestion that critical analysis - scepticism - is absent in climate science is untrue. Shame on the authors.
The attempt to link anxiety from the genuinely disturbing and world changing understanding of how human activities effect climate to Green political irrationality, like it's about green agendas not the climate of the one world we have, is contemptible. The urging of people to doubt the best understanding of climate we have in favour of climate science's losers and not take the real and very serious consequences of carrying on like... well, like the orthodoxy that nothing people can do will change the climate is scientific fact, is endangering our future. Clearly the authors are trying to frame debates and manipulate public opinion. I shudder at the consequences.

Posted elsewhere, but will recap here.

Politics (and economics, and religion) muddy the waters. The vast majority of scientists just want to do what they do best – present their research (in the appropriate forums may I add) and otherwise live a normal life. If the substance of their research proves to be challenging, to whomever (the status quo, BAU, entrepreneurs, evangelists, pollies, add your own) – so be it.

In terms of AGW, at the end of the day, it is up to the ‘whomevers’ to deal with these challenges – the major policy and decision makers are. For those who criticise the UNFCCC or IPCC process, please ... present your case for a better medium to address the problems of ‘climate change’, or suggest a better process to gather and disseminate the collective science garnered over the interim.

GW alarmists, head-in-the-sanders and ‘deniers’ (not genuine sceptics – in the scientific sense) should all take a long, deep, breath – their actions (and inactions) are not doing anyone, anywhere, any good.

There are extremists/fundamentalists on both sides of the fence – one just has to look in the populist media and blogosphere.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for true sceptics. Scientists are pedants by nature (a single wrong word can destroy their careers) but most people can be less pedantic (more disingenuous), particularly in populist media – they often distort and misrepresent the science (intentionally or not) for their own agenda or in (with respect) their own ignorance.

There is a lot of debate in the scientific community about climate change; however, this is more to do with the nuances and the details ('scientific consensus' is being ‘spun’ by the ‘whomevers’). For example, there is much research being done on attribution and climate sensitivity, as it must.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, it would make sense to live and develop in a more sustainable way – this is the real debate the politicians (and the authors of this article) are struggling with, not the science.

Xoddam, welcome back.

JamesH (and one-under-god)

The enhanced green-house effect is difficult for some people to understand.

At the risk of over simplifying; if you put energy into a system, it heats up. If there is water around, it evaporates, ultimately condenses (within 10 days in our atmosphere) and as you say, precipitates out as rain or snow. In this sense, the temperature determines the amount of moisture in the air.

What Dessler and his team of researchers have shown, is that there are other ‘drivers’ (like atmospheric CO2 concentration, resident time >>> 10 days) that impact on the temperature, is independent of relative humidity, and that clouds (for example) act as a positive (usually) feedback.

AGW masks the natural variability that you allude to (it is also important to understand that weather is not climate).

My research interests lie in ocean/atmosphere/land coupled systems, particularly in relation to things ‘water’. In forty years, I have never seen so much misinformation and distortion of the science as I have seen in the last few years. It never ceases to amaze me why ‘arm-chair’ scientists (from accountants to ‘hockey-moms’) keep telling experts in their field that they have it all wrong, that they don’t understand the science, or they are involved in some worldwide socialist conspiracy – astonishing.

Bob Carter is an expert in “rock layering”; he gets celebrity on the public speaking circuit and often represents right-wing think tanks (Lavoisier Group, IPA, Heartland Institute, etc) giving presentations in the populist media (like here on OLO) and the blogosphere. He does not publish articles on ‘climate change’ in reputable science journals for one very simple reason – he cannot back up his rhetoric with validated research. He blows ‘smoke screens’ – why?

In the scientific sense, he is not a climate change ‘sceptic’. He is a climate change ‘denier’.

A true climate change ‘sceptic’ (in the scientific sense) is someone like Roy Spencer – I truly hope he can put a dint in the theory of AGW. But he hasn’t ... yet. He (like Dessler) is also looking at clouds, water and (negative) feedbacks.

xoddam, you suppose that Hamilton "felt his name conferred undeserved legitimacy on the articles appearing alongside his own." If so, he must be delusional, having known Hamilton professionally I believe the reverse is true - association with him calls one's credibility into question. Almost anyone who knew hin in his economist years would agree.

You might say I'm a "Hamilton sceptic."

In 2006 the UK-based journal World Economics published a ‘dual critique’ of the Stern Review, with twin papers authored respectively by scientists and economists. Bob Carter and I were the only Australians among the five authors of ‘the science’ and ‘economic aspects’ part respectively. I have never claimed to be a climate scientist but I have of course read the Carter et al contribution to the dual paper. I noted that it had at least the trappings of scholarship (there are 120 footnotes) and that the authors replied politely but convincingly to two critical reviews of their paper (there were 60 more footnotes in these responses).

I don’t know whether Q&A puts the authors of the science leg of the dual critique into the category of ‘arm-chair’ scientist, but none of them is an accountant or a ‘hockey-mom’ and one - Richard Lindzen of MIT – has been a professor of meteorology for more than 30 years. I was therefore surprised to find two Australian professors - Ian Simmonds of the University of Melbourne and Will Steffen of the ANU – alleging that ‘the grasp of basic physics and chemistry displayed in the critique of “The Science” seems to be rather poor.’

I’m reminded of the performance of former IPCC Co-Chair Sir John Houghton in evidence before the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords in 2005. After giving his (Houghton’s) interpretation of Lindzen’s views, Houghton said:

‘Now, the authors of the relevant chapter in the IPCC Report argued loud and for very long and in the end they summarised in the chapter that the balance of evidence shows that the water feedback is positive; they put that unequivocally in their summary despite having Lindzen as the chapter author, and HE HAD TO GO ALONG WITH IT’ (EMPHASIS added).

I’m not interested in (or equipped to judge) the scientific merits of the conflicting views that Sir John sought to summarise, but I thought that his evidence revealed a lot about the IPCC’s processes

dear q+a
the polar current[which carries co2 into century long cold storage]has huge rivers of methane frozen in it[the quran predicts the oceans to catch fire at the end times ie[this frozen methane melts when the current stops then catches fire]

it has stopped in previous times[but no fires]

it is because the water temp increased and the inflows of desalinated water stopped the current causing the europe deep freeze period,the greenland freeze etc

thing is i used to support the theory,and done my research not for cash nor income but to know,
i have watched the good/guy bad/guy play-out[howhard hated it[as he was the villan and good old kevi was the good guy going to do that howhard couldnt.

we have seen a fall in cloudcover[thus heat that used to be reflected now warms us up]clouds need cold air to condense the moisture trapped in the hot air,add to that we arnt pumping steam into the air anymore[for the moisture]nor are the for-rest's allowed to add their evaporate and condensate.

there are suggested cures like growing algie in our oceans to capture the co2[this apparently could be done as easilly as spraying iron-oxide upon the waters,but i dont want to be teaching a know it all who dosnt give answers

we know there is SOME problem

either science scamming us to get faVOUR FROM THE BANKERS AND A SHARE OF THE MASSIVE CARBON CREDIT]

but unless your talking about cures
i refuse to accept you are serious,THE FACTS YOU PUT UP ARE SINGULARILLY INCOMPLETE AND LOADED WITH SPIN,PUBLISING LINKS and convincing us isnt good effort[we cant do anything like the science clowns could be doing]

all we can say is tell us the science[dont assume you need to dumb it down,because it just insults the training you infure to have,fluff i have come across before by self taught mass debaters,trying to out bid those daring to disagree with your brain

[if they wernt so busy thinking about getting funding and supporting their means of income]they[you] maybe could give facts,that rebut all the points,not try to smear their source

Q&A, you accuse armchair critics of telling experts in their field that they have it all wrong, yet you are quick to dismiss economists (not to mention bus drivers - what have you got against bus drivers?) as muddying the waters. Is this because you are NOT an expert in this field? Are you insecure in your ignorance of this discipline? There does happen to be a Nobel for economics as well, though Dr Pauchari got his in Peace (the American humorist Tom Lehrer says he retired when Kissinger won the Peace prize because it had made satire redundant. I feel a bit the same way about Al Goring.) You talk of "the science" as if it is everything and generates its own absolutely correct solutions, and therefore no one else but you and a select few should have P-p-power, but you have no expertise in "the economics", which is an unavoidable part of these issues - and a beneficial one at that for Big Gore Al. It was an element in the IPCC's projections. And you seem to be talking more about sustainability now than global warming, I mean climate change (I can't keep up with these loosely defined buzz words) - which undoubtedly demands the expertise of economists and other experts.

If the consequences of climate change are alarming people should be sounding alarms. You can only believe there's no cause for alarm if you reject the mainstream scientific understanding of climate. Belief that nothing people can do can change the climate has no scientific basis. To base future energy policy on that unscientific orthodoxy in direct contradiction of best scientific knowledge is far more alarming to me than using the small window of opportunity to act that climate science has given us.
Meanwhile if you expect alternative scientific understanding of climate, that supports the orthodoxy, to prevail, publish it in Nature, not OLO, but policy formulated now must be based on current science not on what science outsiders would like mainstream science to be saying.

Fungo, you accuse me of being completely off-track with one very simplistic comment (“I could hardly agree less”) and then you just dismiss my call for a bit of justification and substance, thus leaving us all just not knowing what you really disagree about, and yourself looking like a very shallow goose. Come on!

How about a meaningful response….please. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132#127142

Under one god, I also read the same article which suggested that introducing iron oxide into the system.

There have been plenty of Scientific hypothesis in the past that have been later proven to be incorrect. But whether a hypothesis is correct or incorrect, it is all about learning and advancing knowledge and an incorrect hypothesis may latter lead to a correct hypothesis, for a given level of knowledge.

A few hundred years ago scientific experiments were condem by religous leaders and seen as the work of the devil. Because it challange religious teachings, now people who challange GW sometimes get labelled has having a mental illness etc.

As too Economics, it is theory and one thing is certain economic predictions are not accurate. I think it was Terry McCain who wrote that ecomomic predictions either over state or understate what happens.

And having seen economic papers that were written to support a particular political view, that ignored other data which did not support that political view, does not particularly fill me with trust on such information.

Ken Fabos,

You’re overlooking a key point in the article - that dissenting from ANY aspect of the wide-ranging orthodoxy can result in the ‘culprit’ being branded ‘a dangerous sceptic.’

The chapter on global warming in Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist ran to 70 pages and had 640 footnotes, so it couldn’t have been published in a scientific journal. However, Cambridge University Press (CUP) accepted the book after receiving unexpectedly favourable reviews, including from environmental scientists.

Lomborg ACCEPTED the IPCC science on global warming in its totality, but that didn’t save his work from violent attacks from the IPCC milieu, including being likened to Hitler by the Panel’s Chairman (Jyllandsposten, 21 April 2004). The review in Nature claimed that Lomborg's text ‘employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren’t dying of AIDS, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.’

Australia’s Aynsley Kellow has explained why this argument is fallacious, and has provided many examples of Nature’s poor editorial standards in his book Science and Public Policy (Edward Elgar, 2007).

To their shame, 12 US tenured academics, led by the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, took the extraordinary step of writing to CUP to demand that the Press convene a scientific panel to identify every error and misrepresentation and add an errata sheet to every copy of the book, transfer its rights in the book to a popular, non-scholarly publishing house, and review its internal procedures to establish how CUP could have let through a book that was ‘essentially a political tract.’

Despite being advised by the chief executive of CUP that the book had been peer-reviewed by four appropriate referees, the gang of 12 persisted in their erroneous claim, most notably in Time magazine on the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002.

The silence of the main body of the scientific community in the face of this outrageous behaviour provides an illuminating example of the dangerous trends to which the authors of this article have drawn attention

Ludwig,
Q & A agreed, Me & I disagreed with your opinion. Dissent happens, mate

IanC, you have had a few ‘senior moments’ lately ... permit me to have one of my own.

Bob Carter claims expertise in; global warming, climate change, sedimentology, stratigraphy, palaeontology and marine geology.

With these “credentials”, in the Supreme Court of Queensland late last year, Bob Carter ‘acted as an expert witness on climate change’ for the respondent Xtrata, in an appeal by the Queensland Conservation Council against a ruling handed down earlier in the year by the Land and Resources Tribunal for the coal mining company.

The decision of the court is transcribed here:

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

It makes interesting reading, but for the sake of brevity, I draw your attention to comments made by Judge MacKenzie (page 20).
Specifically,
“Had either of the following two years been selected as the starting point, and the result for 1998 been treated as an aberrant spike, the period to 2006 would have demonstrated an increase over that period larger than the alleged cooling relied on by the President” (in making the initial ruling).

You tell me Mr Castles, has the Supreme Court Judge erred in his assessment of the representation made by this so called ‘expert witness on climate change’?

I have only two footnotes:

• The appeal was successful and a retrial was ordered because, while all parties at the hearings accepted that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming, natural justice was denied in the Tribunal hearings

• The Qld Labor government indicated on the day of the judgment it would amend the law to prevent any delay to the mine. The government passed the amendments four days later, effectively over-riding the decision of the Court of Appeal and preventing a re-hearing

Vested interests Mr Castles – it has twat to do with the science, as you and Bob Carter so clearly demonstrate.

One-under-god

The release of methane clathrates is a problem; thawing of the perma-frost is already occurring in various parts of the world. However, catastrophic climate change is not about to occur any time soon (contrary to what some GW alarmists are saying). However, this is not to say we (humanity) should not proceed with caution. We should adapt to a warmer and wetter world, we should also reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and manage our land resources better. How we do that are for others to decide (although I have my own opinions).

You want to talk about cures – so do I. It really pees me off to continually have to refute the mendacity and duplicity of the ‘deny –n – delay’ brigade all the time (see above). I too would like answers and solutions to problems and things I don’t understand (especially if they impact on people or things I care about.
_________

fungochumley

Like I said, while scientists can say we have a problem, it is for others to decide how it should be dealt with. What bit don’t you understand?

The resolution is complex, but political and business leaders worldwide are trying. It doesn’t help one bit for denialists, alarmists or dysfunctional media jocks to jeopardise the process (I note that Ian Castles criticises the UNFCCC and IPCC process, but can’t or won’t suggest a better medium to address the problems of climate change, or suggest a better process to gather and disseminate the collective science).

Again, to reiterate, whether you believe in AGW or not, it would make sense to live and develop in a more sustainable way – this is the real debate the politicians (and for your benefit, the ECONOMISTS) are struggling with, not the science.

Your answer to Ludwig is shallow - is that the best you can do?
__________

Ken

The IPCC and Gore got a Peace prize for one simple reason – the impacts of climate change threaten world peace. Some people don’t understand that we do have a window of opportunity to do something about it

Okaaay fungo. Thanks for letting me know I wuz right about the shallow goose bit ( :>/

It begs the question: why on earth are you on a forum like this if you are not willing corroborate your opinions even one iota? Very odd indeed

Q & A,

I'm happy to agree that I'm a senior, but at this point I don't know about the senior moments that you tell me I've had lately. Maybe I have a problem - can you please let me know what senior moments you have in mind?

The authors of this unscientific article claim that sceptics are being ostracised whilst subtly criticising believers.

And Australia’s most senior clergy, Cardinal Pell, in replying to criticism from the Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn George Browning last year, accused 'radical environmentalists' of 'moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear'.

Yet the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that humans must change to prevent further anthropogenic destruction of the planet:

“The menace of radical climate change with which we began is only one instance; but the effects of irresponsible alteration of the ecology of life-forms in specific habitats (cane-toads in Australia for example) show the same reality.

"There is a point beyond which the system cannot continue to operate 'normally'.

“And the transfer, for economic reasons, of plant and animal species from one environment to another has had a regularly devastating effect on the overall ecology of a new environment and its balance.

“Economics can manage for only so long as a science that ignores the limits of material resource."

Last year, Lavoisier and IPA notables descended on Parliament House in Canberra to attend a launch of Ray Evans book, “Nine facts about climate change.”

Guests included mining barons Hugh Morgan and Arvi Parbo and founding member of the Lavoisier Group, Peter Walsh, a gentleman who the authors here “draw inspiration from one of the Hawke government’s greatest figures.”

Evans ungraciously told The Age that Gore’s film was “bull@*t from beginning to end.” Really Ray?

Arvi Parbo declared at the launch "One must admire the skilful way in which the public has been led to believe that there is no longer any uncertainty, and that disastrous climate change caused by humans is imminent," "Imminent", Arvi?

He then proceeded to tip a bucket on the IPCC, Al Gore, Tim Flannery and Bob Brown.

So authors, whilst there is not yet scientific consensus on all the reasons for climate change, I must ask: “why do you see the splinter in the eye of the believer but fail to see the plank in the eye of the sceptic?”

Thanks guys. Your insults and condescension of others here shows inspiring depth.
Q&A, perhaps the struggle you see in economics and politics is because it is more complex and challenging than playing with Nintendo Climate games and involves the real world of decisions and accountability, and weighing perspectives and values other than yours. I know, you're the good and pure scientists in a lab who just pass on the dire messages. Don't harm us. Those others are bad men with actual potency in the world.

Warning ... straying off topic.

Ian, all banter aside.

You admit to not being a ‘climate scientist’. Nevertheless, you are a statistician (with a bent for economics). Three questions if I may.

1. Do you think Supreme Court Judge Mackenzie erred in his assessment of Bob Carter’s assertion that global warming stopped in 1998?

2. With your other hat on, how do you see Copenhagen playing out next year, now that the US is likely to be more liberal in its stance on climate change while at the same time the world’s economic situation is cascading out of control?

3. Do you think there is too much of a divide between political science/economics and ‘climate science’ that never the twain shall meet?

Thanks in advance for some qualified answers.

Others, please join in.

Q&A, catastrophic climate change may not occur any time soon but what we do now will contribute to how soon and how catastrophic. A straight reading of the IPCC's most recent report says there's plenty to be alarmed about and it's not irrational to take it seriously - more like irrational to fail to.

IanC, I find the authors’ abuse of the terms scepticism and orthodoxy far more interesting and revealing than their complaints about others abusing the term "sceptic". Anyway I thought the point of the article was to imply getting serious about climate change is an irrational Green agenda, (it isn’t), to falsely name science based understanding of climate as orthodoxy (it's not), to suggest that there is significant scientific doubt (there isn't), that gets unheeded for failing to conform (it doesn't) rather than because of a lack of scientific merit.

Meanwhile, unspoken and unchallenged, is the real orthodoxy; that what people do won't change the climate. Applying the same "scepticism" to that belief tells me a climate change sceptic's "I don't know" just isn't good enough to decide anything - to decide to act or decide not to.

Too much of the article is about implying and suggesting: referring to the scientific understanding of climate as an orthodoxy turns the very good indicator that the science is right - most results in agreement - into an implication that there's a kind of conspiracy to suppress disagreement. All it takes is one word misapplied. The authors use it that way. To me that implies and suggests the authors are climate science denialists. IanC, I note that you use the same suggestive terminology.

There is no evidence that any sound science gets suppressed (loudly diasagreed with sometimes, sure), but when specific criticisms don't stand up to scientific scrutiny - after true scepticism has been professionally applied - but still get endlessly repeated as if real, scientifically valid, and "suppressed" for their conclusions rather than lack of merit... that deserves the label denialism. It's been denialists falsely naming what they do as "scepticism" that has led to the term "sceptic" being used derisively. A shame maybe, but then the term has been used loosely all around.

No Ken Fabos, I did NOT use that ‘suggestive terminology’ and I haven’t labelled anyone a climate science denialist. I illustrated the emptiness of this offensive label by pointing out that Bjorn Lomborg ACCEPTED the IPCC science but was still likened to a Holocaust denier in a review published in Nature

Ken, that’s right. It’s important to distinguish the difference between being ‘alarmist’ and publishing the science that truly is alarming. Indeed, since the preparation of the AR4, more research has been produced that shows we are trending at the high end of the IPCC projections. How much more evidence is required?

Certainly, having a debate over the use of terms ‘alarmist, ‘denialist’ or sceptic does not engender any sense of urgency (which is clearly required) but rather, can be seen as a tactic to delay action – for whatever reason.

I would have preferred IanC address the 3 questions put to him. Seems to have gone down like a lead shot.

Q & A,

I'm not sure that my answers to your questions will be of much help to you, but here they are:

(1) I don't know what Supreme Court Judge Mackenzie said in his assessment, and it's not on my reading list.

(2) I'm not a political scientist and can't make an informed speculation about how Copenhagen will play out. I've seen reports that Obama may appoint Al Gore as the US climate change supremo. If that happens, I'd worry that Copenhagen will be an even bigger failure than Kyoto. But the experts may disagree and I'll await their assessment.

(3) I don't see any obstacle to the meeting of economics and climate change science. As noted above, I was part of the team of scientists and economists that produced a 'dual critique' of the Stern Review, and an all-party Committee of the House of Lords produced a unanimous report after taking evidence from a number of leading economists and climate scientists.

IanC

Lomborg is reported as saying: "Of course, we shouldn't ignore global warming. But instead of trying to cut CO2 emissions, we should focus on dramatically increasing the funding into energy research and development.

"If the price of renewable energy dropped below the cost of fossil fuels by mid-century, everyone - including China and India - would switch to the greener alternatives."

"Mid century?" Is he suggesting that we do nothing until mid-century? In the meantime, it's business as usual?

Lomborg who has an MA in political science, optimistically advised in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," published in 1998, that he finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978 and that 'basically, our forests are not under threat and that most of the really serious problems have been dealt with.'

1978? Who could trust this man with the task of forward planning?

By 2006, the Amazon forest was smaller by 700,000 square miles than in 1970.

Amazon destruction jumped 228 percent in August this year, when compared to the same month a year ago, according to a report from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research. About 300 square miles of the Amazon was destroyed last month, compared to 90 square miles in August 2007.

"This paper concentrates on food and hunger, deforestation, air pollution and climate change and finds that Lomborg's analysis suffers from several problems, including selective use of data, over-simplification of issues, posing the wrong questions and lack of objectivity in his quest for optimistic trends.

"Ironically Lomborg makes the same errors as those he criticises:"

http://www.res.org.uk/journals/abstracts.asp?ref=0013-0133&vid=113&iid=488&aid=813 (Matthew A. Cole Department of Economics University of Birmingham

Yes Ian, not much help ... but thanks for your response. We choose where to cast our pearls.

1. Mackenzie said of Bob Carter’s submission:

“Had either of the following two years been selected as the starting point, and the result for 1998 been treated as an aberrant spike (remember its El Nino), the period to 2006 would have demonstrated an increase over that period larger than the alleged cooling relied on by the President” (in making the initial ruling).”

This from someone who is not familiar with signal to noise ratios, the difference between climate and weather, or the WMO 30 year climate change trend analyses.

I asked if you could put your statistician’s hat on and comment. You chose not to.

Notwithstanding copious citations and foot-notes, the judge rejected Carter’s flirtation with statistics. Yet Carter continually asserts that global warming stopped in 1998, despite the fact that 11 of the last 13 years have been the hottest in recorded history and that the rate of warming over the last 150 years has not been experienced since man has stepped on this earth.

2. I know you are not a political scientist, but I asked if you could put your economics hat on. Ian, you are a respected and well credentialed contributor to OLO to at least give an informed opinion – your comments would be useful, but they are shallow. Again your choice.

Stern, Garnaut and all political and business leaders know too well the science – yet you have serious critiques. It is the current economic paradigm that has failed our society, not the science.

Btw, I would also have concerns if Gore is appointed ‘climate change supremo’.

3. I am encouraged by your response. However, I have issues when I read things like this:

http://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics

Aitken is a political scientist and he singles out you and Bob Carter for special acknowledgment – noting that you and Bob Carter are associated with "denialists" and "sceptics" – subject of the current article.

Hello IanC

Your emotive response to my previous post is noted, though the response is on the wrong thread.

I have researched a little more on Bjorn Lomborg and I have found nothing to alter my opinion.

In fact I've now concluded that many of his environmental claims are a massive load of codswallop.

As a result, I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

1. http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/specious/

2. "[Lomborg] has needlessly muddled public understanding
and wasted immense amounts of the time of capable people
who have had to take on the task of rebutting him.

"And he has done so at the particular intersection of science
with public policy – environment and the human condition
– where public and policy-maker confusion about
the realities is more dangerous for the future of society
than on any other science-and-policy question excepting,
possibly, the dangers from weapons of mass destruction."

(John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is also the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center and from 2005 to 2008 served as President-Elect, President, and Chair of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)

3. "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.

"In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg’s publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization.

"Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."

(Danish Research Agency
The Danish Committees on
Scientific Dishonesty
For and on behalf of the Committees
Hans Henrik Brydensholt)

4. http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/ecol-econ/msg03559.html

Cheerio

Q&A,
I do not consider you the facilitator of this discussion.
I do not think that you, especially as an anonymous poster, have special entitlement to a response from anybody, let alone someone with IanC's reputation.
I am troubled by your fluctuation between insulting condescension and fawning flattery.

Hilarious to read dickie comment on the emotiveness of a response (not apparent to me), as I consider mindless emotive rants his trademark.

Sorry IanC,

"... that dissenting from ANY aspect of the wide-ranging orthodoxy can result in the ‘culprit’ being branded ‘a dangerous sceptic.’"

... was you paraphrasing the authors' point and wasn't necessarily agreement with the use of such opinion loaded terminology. Apologies.

Still, I don't have any problem branding the authors dangerous "denialists" for an article that suggests strong criticism of denialist policies of inaction and of delaying and opposing action on climate change is irrational.

Dickie,

You conclude from your research that many of Lomborg’s claims are ‘a massive load of codswallop.’ But did he make them? For example, where did Lomborg say that ‘the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978’. On the strength of your claim that he’d said this, you sarcastically remarked ‘1978? Who could trust this man with the task of forward planning?’ A page reference please, or a withdrawal.

You quote from the findings of the Danish Inquisition (masquerading as a Committee on Scientific Dishonesty). Did your source disclose that 286 Danish research scientists wrote a letter of protest about that shameful investigation (Politiken, 18 January 2003)? Or that the subsequent review by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation found that the judgment against Lomborg was ‘completely void of argumentation’ for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice? And characterised the Committee’s treatment of the case as ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘deserving criticism’ and ‘emotional’?

John Holdren’s stuff seems third-rate to me – his only talent is in kicking heads. He was one of the ‘hit men’ that Scientific American enlisted for its notorious ‘Science hits back’ collection, when they smeared Lomborg in their columns, denied him the right of reply and then forced Lomborg to withdraw the reply that he’d published on his own website by threatening legal action for breach of their copyright.

Holdren forecast in 1969 (in co-authorship with Paul Ehrlich) that United States life expectancy would drop to 42 by 1980 because of pesticides, and that by 1999 the US population would be 22.6 million (it turned out to be 272 million: who’d entrust this man with the task of forward planning?). For further examples of Holdren’s forecasting track record, see my posts #89 and #105 at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3434 .

Holdren was probably one of the 12 tenured professors who falsely claimed that Lomborg’s book had not been peer-reviewed, tried to force Cambridge University Press to withdraw it, and persisted with their charge even when it was denied by the chief executive of CUP. Do you defend these actions?

fungochumley

If my comments seem provocative to you (or IanC), so be it.

A guiding strength of OLO is in its upholding the principles and guiding tenets of free speech. Whether a contributor’s “name/tag” is ‘Joe the Plumber’ or ‘Mr President’ should not matter – what is said is what matters. Ergo, playing the ball and not the man.

You seem intent on the latter – in this thread and others that you have posted to.

Of course, ‘freedom of speech’ does not mean the right to say anything that incites violence (although you show clear tendencies to want to grasp my jugular and squeeze – very hard) but I am sure Ian can well look after himself.

If you (or Ian) do not want to engage in meaningful discussion, well – that is your (and his) prerogative. If that is the tact you are taking, then I see it as typical obfuscation – a strategy well played by the ‘deny-n-delay’ crowd - of which I think IanC is a very good ambassador.

I also believe that the right to free speech does not confer the right to defame, slander or libel any contributor to an online forum like OLO. I don’t think I have done this (although you may think otherwise) and if I have – then please, bring it to Graham Young’s attention.

Now, it’s patently evident that you don’t like what I say. However, I have a right to say what I think and a right to challenge the comments of anyone else that contributes to the discourse – you included.

Your comments on this thread (and others) don’t contribute in any meaningful way, so ... what exactly is your point (if any)?

Ken Fabos,

Thank you. My objection to ‘denialist’ arises in part from the connotations that it evokes, but in greater measure because it begs the whole question of what is being denied. In his written submission to the HoL Committee, Richard Lindzen said that there had probably been about 0.6 degrees C global mean warming over the past century, that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and should contribute to warming, that CO2 was increasing and that there is good evidence that man has been responsible for its recent increase. If Lindzen is labelled a denialist, as he often has been, what are those who deny one or more of these propositions to be called?

In ‘Death rattles of the climate change skeptics’, Clive Hamilton said that I was ‘associated with’ the denialists of the Lavoisier Group and that I was one of Australia’s leading climate change sceptics. He’s also said, before severing relations with OLO, that those who called themselves sceptics were actually denialists.

During the past seven years I’ve made presentations or been a panelist at workshops, expert meetings, conferences, soirees or seminars convened by the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, the IPCC, the IPA, the Australian Academy of Science and the Garnaut Climate Change Review (No, not at the Lavoisier Group, as it happens). I’ve had co-authored articles published in World Economics (3) and Energy & Environment (2), four sole-authored articles published in OLO and a publicly-available submission to the House of Lords Inquiry. And I’ve made countless postings to blogs in Australia, the US and Canada.

All of this material is readily available for Clive Hamilton’s expert scrutiny and criticism, yet Clive chooses not to engage with me and to criticise Don Aitkin for having done so. And Q&A says he/she has ‘issues’ when he/she reads Clive’s piece: I gather these are issues about me, not about Clive. He/she now accuses me of ‘typical obfuscation’ and being of the ‘deny-n-delay’ crowd. How about you telling me where I’m wrong, Q&A, instead of firing off questions and criticising my replies?

Querulous & Anonymous,

Re playing the ball and not the man, did I miss your response to Ian's request for you to back up your "senior's moments" allegation? Did it pass through to the keeper, while you were going the man with words like "denialist" and "ambassador" of deny-and-delay brigade?

You are right that Ian can well look after himself, and I see that he has above, admirably. My point is not to defend him, but to expose your shoddy standards, because if this is representative of the practise of the climate science community, it reaffirm my beliefs about its conduct, and I too have the right to say it.

IanC

“A page reference please, or a withdrawal.” That request IanC I consider quite curious when, after a cursory glance, I note that you have written 10 posts on this topic yet provided us with a mere 2 links to substantiate your assertions.

Since you have written under the “Articles” section where the titles of your articles would have one believe that you are an expert on climate change or environmental issues, we “ordinary” punters could be forgiven for thinking that you and Lomborg (both economists) have some expertise in this area.

I, on the other hand, an “ordinary” punter, have written two posts and provided three links and various quotes from reputable scientists, verbatim. I do not presume anything. Therefore, IanC, perhaps you may in future provide us with a few more links to substantiate your own assertions?

I have continued my research of Lomborg’s book which I can only conclude has created much merriment amongst an ethical scientific community who are most eminently qualified to comment - commentators who, (unlike Lomborg who fails to admit to his mistakes), endeavour only to provide clear and careful appraisal of the certainties and uncertainties about climate change, biodiversity, extinctions etc.

And as the respected scientist Daniel Simberloff writes of Lomborg’s book: “That such a polemic could get through the review process of a respected academic press amazes me. There are enough controversial aspects of environmental forecasting, particularly at the global level, that a conscientious, comprehensive, authoritative examination would be a valuable contribution, but The Skeptical Environmentalist is not such a book.”—Daniel Simberloff, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee

Dr Raven:

http://www.discoverlife.org/who/CV/Raven,_Peter.html): “The most recent example of this kind of problem is the work of a Danish economist named Bjorn Lomborg, who reprises many of the earlier misleading, if not outright delusional, conclusions offered earlier by Simon and Easterbrook (1995), among others.

"Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," has, remarkably, been published by the generally-respected Cambridge University Press, but evidently without critical review from people actually knowledgeable about environmental science.”

http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/Science-reviewer-calls-anti-environmental-book-dangerous-and-misguided-8865-1/

http://www.ecocouncil.dk/download/sceptical.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/577wt8258u5825t6/

ect.ect.

You’ve written two posts, Dickie? On my count you’ve made at least 17 posts to OLO in less than a fortnight: 11 on ‘Bridging the gap between science and political activities’, 4 on ‘Stay rational on climate change’ and 2 on ‘Deadlines just don’t seem to apply to Gunn’s.’

On this thread you described ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ as ‘a load of codswallop’ and claimed that Lomborg had ‘optimistically advised’ in that book ‘that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978’ (14 Nov., 11.16 am). YOU GAVE NO PAGE REFERENCE FOR THIS CLAIM. As I’d already used my maximum two posts per day answering points explicitly directed to me by others, I used the ‘Deadlines just don’t seem to apply to Gunn’s’ thread (14 November 3.19 pm) to point out that your statement was wrong: Lomborg had said that 86% of the forest remained intact in 1999 – down from 95% in 1978. I GAVE PAGE REFERENCES FOR THESE STATEMENTS (pps. 114-15).

I’m not prepared to waste my time searching Lomborg’s 500-page book and its 3000 footnotes for a statement that I don’t believe he made. If you believe he did make the statement that you attributed to him, tell me where I can find it and and I’ll comment. If you can’t back up your claim, withdraw it. Until you do one or the other, I won’t be responding to any of your posts

“If you can’t back up your claim, withdraw it. Until you do one or the other, I won’t be responding to any of your posts”

Mr Castles, Why do I get the impression that you are endeavouring to cast aspersions on my integrity? Those who wish to, should first be without sin and I assure you, I never pluck figures from the air. Do you?

If my “1978” figure was incorrect, then you may be interested in going to the source and having them corrected. I’m sure you are quite capable of that.

The Lavoisier Group URL had you publicly listed as one of their members but you quite expeditiously had your name removed from their website.

Bjorn Lomborg’s claim that he was a member of Greenpeace was quickly exposed as fallacious since Greenpeace said he wasn’t, therefore, I do not believe you are in a position to defame my character:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X40c_eSy3XUJ:www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist+Amazon+forest+still+retains+more+than+80%25+of+its+cover+in+1978+bjorn+lomborg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Furthermore, you and your small “exclusive” clique, continue to sing the praises of Lomborg whilst head butting his dissenters. Of course, most of the hyperactive Lomborg's quotes allude to secondary literature and media articles, however, you appear quite determined in assuring us, that if one receives peer reviews of one’s work, then that should be sufficient to silence any dissent over the author’s credibility.

Curiously, I note that you, along with the usual suspects, Carter, Lindzen, Henderson et al, co-authored a paper: “The Stern Review.” On a page not far from commencement was the following insertion:

“It is widely assumed, in particular by governments
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
that the peer review process provides a guarantee of quality and objectivity.

”This is not so.

“We note that the process as applied to climate science
has tolerated gross failures in due disclosure and archiving,
and that peer review is both too inbred and insufficiently
thorough to serve any audit purpose, which we believe is
now essential for science studies that are to be used to drive
trillion-dollar policies.”

Do you run with the hares and hunt with the hounds Mr Castles?

Heaven help us. Could one of the more intelligent AGW-ers perhaps have a word in dickie's ear on even the elementals of public discourse and academic prdocedure. That way he/she may possibly have a chance of taking in the following, and we might be spared these pitiful responses. That is:

It is simply absurd, not to say self-important, to ask someone to find and correct a quote for which you have not given a reference. If I say Freud said he had "monkeys flying out his behind", would you go away and find this quote and check it for me please, dickie? It may take you some time, but no rush.

To then defensively attack the other (who HAS given you a reference) for supposedly defaming YOUR character and refusing to provide the source simply screams of guilt or error. You are embarrassing yourself on this thread, in what seems to be becoming quite a pattern (see Poynter exchange).

"It is simply absurd, not to say self-important, to ask someone to find and correct a quote for which you have not given a reference."

My dear Funguschumley

Please get a grip on yourself. I have provided not one but TWO references. These references will be obvious to all participants, with the exception of illiterate screeching henchmonkeys, who swing from thread to thread, intent on causing mischief.

Cheers

dickie: Lomborg "advised in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," published in 1998, that he finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978".

Perhaps a reminder then of one of your "TWO" references? Help a poor illiterate old whatever monkey, for if even one of us can see there is no reference, what does that make the person who is unable to provide one and uses all manner of distraction to hide the fact? I will conclude that this is the case if your next post doesn't contain the reference, but only insult and bluster, and won't waste any more time with you. What I expect, however, is a "ciao" as you swing away from another unacknowledged mistake, and unsubstantiated smear.

"Corrupted statutory instruments"

“Perhaps a reminder then of one of your "TWO" references? Help a poor illiterate old whatever monkey, for if even one of us can see there is no reference, what does that make the person who is unable to provide one and uses all manner of distraction to hide the fact? I will conclude that this is the case if your next post doesn't contain the reference, but only insult and bluster, and won't waste any more time with you. What I expect, however, is a "ciao" as you swing away from another unacknowledged mistake, and unsubstantiated smear.” (Fungochumley)

Dear “poor illiterate old whatever monkey,”

Tediously, the following links have been carried forward from 18 November, 11.02AM, for your benefit. Perhaps you can ask your remedial teacher to translate the contents of these links, (remember....not one link but two - duh!) before "you swing away from another unacknowledged mistake, and unsubstantiated smear?”

Can I now look forward to your apology or just more of the same - incoherent, unintelligible, screeching?!

Ciao!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X40c_eSy3XUJ:www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist+Amazon+forest+still+retains+more+than+80%25+of+its+cover+in+1978+bjorn+lomborg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en
(Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 11:02:25 AM)

dickie,

In a post (Friday, 14 November 2008 11:16:33 AM) you gave us the following:
"Lomborg who has an MA in political science, optimistically advised in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," published in 1998, that he finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978 and that 'basically, our forests are not under threat and that most of the really serious problems have been dealt with.'

You provided no reference for this, and were subsequently asked for one. (IanC, Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:19:12 AM and again at 11:14:26 AM) You were also given a page reference from the PRIMARY SOURCE in question contradicting this statement.(On the Gunn's thread on 14th Nov, and again here on Sunday, 16 November 2008 8:01:12 PM)

No reference or retraction was forthcoming amidst all your bluster, and you now have the nerve to mention two links randomly dropped in in the middle of a comment on Lomborg's association with Greenpeace TWO DAYS later (on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 11:02:25 AM) as your references, and accuse others of being incoherent and illiterate for not following your wandering nonsense. Moreover, apart from being unimpressed by the sum total of your "research" into Lomborg, in one of the great ironies of recent OLO history, the links provided are to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X40c_eSy3XUJ:www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist+Amazon+forest+still+retains+more+than+80%25+of+its+cover+in+1978+bjorn+lomborg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

in the same comment, in which you state:

"Of course, most of the hyperactive Lomborg's quotes allude to secondary literature and media articles..."

It is tedious, dickie, and I have had enough of it. I will let anyone who is interested be the judge.

Dickie

I’ve been busy elsewhere. No ‘climate scientist’ disputes the fact that the planet is warming or that humanity is contributing to it – ‘denialists’ dispute this. IanC gives the impression he is not associated with the Lavoisier Group (he says he has not given presentations to them). This may be so, but this group (like others of neo-con leanings) champion his dogma. Ian is not a ‘denialist’ (sorry if I gave that impression, Clive Hamilton obviously touched a raw nerve with him) but he is caught between a rock and a hard place.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-change-by-author.php#anchor3

It reads like a who’s who of the ‘deny and delay’ brigade, as you well know.

Ian Castles is listed immediately below His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in the Lavoisier Group’s letter to Ban Ki Moon presented at Bali last year (also presented to Garnaut).

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/garnaut/GarnautsubappxA.pdf

The Office of the Secretary General makes no claim to have entertained a response to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, let alone the Lavoisier Group. If IanC knows of a response, I would be interested to know what was said (it’s not on LG’s web site).

Here's a letter by other senior economists, note the difference in tone.

www.wwf.org.au/publications/openletterafrv2.pdf

Do economic rationalists have it wrong? I think so – look no further than the financial turmoil that the world is now facing. It goes deeper though. Most of the contention about global warming seems to be centred on economics and political ideology, not the science. I agree (with Lindzen) that science has become politicised – but not for the reasons he outlines, quite the opposite in fact.

The health of the planet is being compromised by ‘free market’ policies and the rambunctious desire for economic growth at all costs – a dilemma for politicians and economists of all persuasions.

You may be interested in this (the lap dog wouldn’t)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

and

http://www.sustainabilityscience.org/category.html?categoryid=67

Now, I don’t care whether it is Mr or Mrs Fungochumley or if that is her/his real name. What is important is what she/he says ... unfortunately, it is a waste of time replying to her/him.

Thanks Q&A for posting a link to the ‘dogma’ (your word) emanating from the Lavoisier Group. If association with this Group is demonstrated by inclusion in this list alongside Don Aitkin, David Henderson, Garth Paltridge and John Zillman, I’m happy to be counted in.

As you’ve been trawling around for information on the Lavoisier Group, you may want to know that the first Annual Report of the Co-operative Centre on Greenhouse Accounting, the Centre’s first official media release in 2000 reported the acceptance by Professor Graham Farquhar FAA FRS of the Lavoisier Group’s invitation to present at a conference in Melbourne. Professor Farquhar was at this time a coordinating lead author for the IPCC. The CRC said that its media release ‘prompted several inquiries for information about the Centre and a request from the Sydney Powerhouse Museum for contributions to their greenhouse exhibition from 2001 to 2005.’

Other speakers at the Lavoisier meeting included Alan Oxley, former Australian Ambassador to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and former Chairman of the GATT Council; Dr Wendy Craik, Executive Director of the National Farmers’ Federation, who before her appointment to the NFF had spent 17 years working for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Donald McGauchie, former President of the Grains Council of Australia and of the NFF; the Hon Tony Staley, Federal President of the Liberal Party; and Bob Hogg AO, former National Secretary of the ALP and former Senior Adviser to Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Lavoisier’s President is of course Peter Walsh, who was for seven years successively Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister of Finance in the Hawke Government.

Dickie, You said that I’d ‘quite expeditiously’ had my name removed from the Lavoisier Group website. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or did you just make that up as well

Thank you for that well-founded information Q&A. The connection between the planet’s surface temperature, GHGs and water vapour was of particular interest. More later.

For the moment, I'll indulge myself in a brief recall of my memory pegs, in relation to the true motives of IanC and the associations/citizen affiliations of which he boasts:

1. Grain Council of Australia: Supporters of single desk and AWB/Saddam/kickbacks/wheat for weapons

2. National Farmers Federation: Live exports/biodiversity/abominable animal cruelty/ “Lies, damn lies and statistics.”

3. Peter Walsh/ supporter of Graeme Campbell, former MLA (and migrant)/Australia’s League of Rights/White Australia Policy/bigot and nutter.

Campbell (recently deprived of his "free market" right to pollute), ordered by Kalgoorlie/Boulder City Council to cease cooking filthy café oil in backyard to convert to “biofuel” which polluted ambient air and stank out the neighbours and beyond!

4. Ian Castle/former head of ABARE: The Commonwealth government relies heavily on figures provided by ABARE.

For its economic modelling of the impacts of meeting greenhouse-gas targets, ABARE raised $1.1 million from oil companies and industry lobby groups, offering them the opportunity to pay $50,000 to sit on the steering committee and "have an influence on the direction of the model development" (as stated in ABARE’s literature).

Those who took advantage of the offer included Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, BHP, Rio Tinto, the Australian Aluminium Council, the Business Council of Australia, and the Norwegian oil company Statoil.

The Australian Conservation Foundation, which could not afford the $50,000, requested a waiver of the fee to be on the steering committee but was refused.

IanC, You have failed to acknowledge the previous links I provided – a covert but typical strategy of the “free market at any cost” cabal with which I have been intimately associated. I shall not debate with you in future posts.

The Lavoisier Group publicly reported that you were a member of their group which you denied.

The Lavoisier Group are either devious or extremely incompetent. Either way, why would the people of Australia want to do deals with a group which has the competency skills and/or ethics of a used car salesman?

Dickie, that should have been:

http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/openletterafrv2.pdf

Ian, my pleasure. I haven’t been “trawling” (your word) ... indeed, I have been reading and watching the Lavoisier Group for a number of years now – long before they represented themselves on the ABC’s programme on “The Great Global Warming Swindle” last year (but that is another story). I don’t have blinkers on (try to be objective) like so many of the, umm ... ‘deny-n-delay’ crowd

Yes Ian, dogma ... your belief and conviction held for ideological purposes of an organisation (e.g. Lavoisier Group) and considered to be authoritative and certainly not to be disputed, let alone diverged from. I think this describes your perspective quite well, but that is only my opinion.

You still don’t get it (it’s not about you or nostalgia trips down memory lane – I too have ‘senior moments’). I think the fundamentalists on BOTH sides should pull their head out of their collective nether-nethers - a point ignored by you and your defence team, Mr & Mrs Fungochumley.

For example, I think the IPCC have got it wrong over the SRES, and you guys (econometricians) have not been able to model correctly. Unfortunately, you guys have not been able to produce more meaningful models or scenarios, preferring to play ‘power & control’ games with the world’s economy and its inhabitants.

Nevertheless, basic laws of physics and chemistry clearly demonstrate that we (the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere) have a problem. I really do want scientists (the likes of Lindzen and Spencer) to knock AGW out of the ground (and its ludicrous to think that research on AGW should be curtailed) but they haven’t be able to do that – no matter the musings of Dick (whose science I quite admire albeit with issues) or his sour-grape political motives.

Of course there are “deniers” and “believers” on both sides of the political spectrum – see the outcome of the Xtrata case, or ‘Arnie the governator’ progressive actions in one of the world’s biggest economies – what is your point?

Oh ... I also subscribe to Quadrant.

dickie & Q&A the Inquisitor,

Predictably, with backs to the wall you go on the ad hom attack. Like the salem witch hunts, you PUT people between a rock and a hard place - float and you are a witch - and are of course unwilling to undergo the same trials by ordeal. Did you say something about playing the ball, meaningful responses, engaging, Q&A?, as you have not made a judgment on the relative merits of the accuracy of the references that were being discussed, but attempt to annihilate with tyrannical abuse. Is this your academic MO?

Dickie, Your memory pegs have let you down. My name is Castles (not Castle) and I’ve never had any connection with ABARE. Your claim that I formerly headed that organisation is another figment of your imagination, and your account of its fund-raising activities is irrelevant except as an indictment of the IPCC for selecting two ABARE economists as the only Australian members of the writing team for the chapter that reviewed the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES).

As I don’t have any affiliation with the Grains Council of Australia, the NFF, or the Lavoisier Group, why do you say that I’m boasting about it? I don't have any connection with the Labor or Liberal Parties either, although I was appointed to positions of trust by governments on both sides of Australian politics. You didn’t provide any support for your claim that I’d had my name removed from the Lavoisier website - another memory peg that let you down.

Q&A, thanks for agreeing that ‘the IPCC have got it wrong over the SRES.’ I put this view in a letter to the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering in 2002, in which I proposed that they ‘sponsor a professional technical review of the SRES projections.’ I argued that such a review could ‘best be conducted in Australia, rather than in countries in which the reputation of prestigious institutions would be at stake.’

But unfortunately I copied my letter to a number of experts who were subsequently to be named as contributors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, and at least one of these future Nobel Laureates forwarded it to members of the IPCC milieu who had an interest in killing the proposal. Among the IPCC contributors on my mailing list were Roger Beale, Geoff Love, Brian Fisher, Neville Nicholls, Andrew Pitman, David Karoly, Ann Henderson-Sellers and Bryant McAvaney.

So my effort to inject some openness into the IPCC’s deliberations facilitated their successful campaign to retain the status quo. In this the Panel had the enthusiastic support of several prestigious Australian institutions who knew the SRES couldn’t survive expert scrutiny.

IanC

While I advised that I would no longer debate with you, I am obliged to offer you an apology for confusing ABARE with ABS. This is no doubt a result of my propensity to glean statistics from ABARE. I am well aware that your surname is Castles – the error was simply a typing omission.

"You didn’t provide any support for your claim that I’d had my name removed from the Lavoisier website - another memory peg that let you down." Not quite IanC.

According to my research the following is the first paragraph of a letter you wrote to John Quiggin in response to the Lavoisier claim:

“Yes, at my request the Lavoisier Group will make clear (I think at their Annual Meeting later this month) that I am not and have never been a member of the Group. Please feel free to confirm this with Ray Evans, the founder of the Group.”

At your request IanC? Why did you obfuscate this information, assuming the letter is authentic?

I note that you have again failed to allude to the “1978 error” regarding Lomberg or to advise the reasons for your ambiguity on peer reviews yet you persist in answering questions with a question.

Contd………

...before you continue, dickie,

"Not quite IanC."

Yes, quite. You didn't support your claim. That you provide your "research" NOW doesn't negate IanC's statement. Do you have a problem understanding time, as in the "reference" debacle above, are you confused, or are you simply lying?

The letter you quote to John Quiggin in which Ian asks it to be made clear that he is not nor ever has been a member of the Group does not in the least validate your claim, whatever it is you are suggesting. Why wouldn't ANYONE request a correction if they discovered they were listed as a member of ANY organization to which they didn't belong? It is, again, you who is obfuscating, or possibly, again, attempting to smear with deliberate distortion.

IanC also quite clearly alluded to your “1978 error” regarding Lomberg (sic) and it is you who has failed to acknowledge this. Unless you can find a page reference in The Skeptical Environmentalist, or elsewhere, perhaps you should write to your sources to correct their error.

In the name of honesty, I will not stand by and let such pathological confusion, or deliberate deceit and smear, pass unchallenged.

Continue with caution.

Contd...

IanC

On the domestic front, Dennis Jenkins, Liberal backbencher, former research scientist and proponent for nuclear energy advised the Australian newspaper in July this year:

"But any detailed scrutiny of scientific data shows that the environment is quite stable. There are even suggestions the world's temperature has decreased in recent years."

Temperature aside, do you believe the environment is "quite stable?" Jenkins hails from WA where last night's Seven Thirty Report repeated previous warnings that juvenile lobster in WA's waters are zero and that this $300 million industry is under serious threat. Today the major Canning and Swan rivers are again on life support where they must be repeatedly oxygenated. Workers are endeavouring to reduce nutrients from the catchment source.

In July Jessica Meeuwig from the UWA MARINE FUTURES PROJECT advised:

"I think what was probably the biggest surprise was how few of some of these key species there are actually out there. For instance, we have 750 hours of footage from the Abrolhos to Cape Naturalist and we saw 43 dhufish in 750 hours."

"Researchers with the marine futures program at the University of Western Australia say there is a clear link between higher recreational fishing pressures on the west coast and vastly depleted fish stocks."

"Research from the Department of Fisheries conducted last year was damning, finding that fish stocks in the Indian Ocean from Augusta to Kalbarri have been severely depleted. The Department recommended immediately halving captures of what it called the vulnerable five species."

New Liberal Premier has now cancelled the proposed restrictions on recreational fishing - awaiting "more evidence."

There are many more dire ecological symptons emerging in WA.

Do you believe these dilemmas are a normal part of a "stable environment?" Should we continue conducting "business as usual?" If not what are your recommendations please?

Dickie,

On 16 November (8.01 pm) I told you that I was ‘not prepared to waste my time searching Lomborg’s 500-page book and its 3000 footnotes for a statement that I don’t believe he made. If you believe he did make the statement that you attributed to him, tell me where I can find it and and I’ll comment. If you can’t back up your claim, withdraw it. Until you do one or the other, I won’t be responding to any of your posts.’

Please understand that you said that Lomborg made the ‘1978’ statement about the Amazon forest IN THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST (TSE), and you scoffed at him for saying it. I’m not in the least interested in learning that someone else said that something that Lomborg said in the book was wrong, nor do I see it as my job to correct any or all of the false statements in the various anti-Lomborg documents to which you’ve provided links.

Dickie, I’d like you to point out where Bjorn Lomborg made the false statement that you said that he’d made IN THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST. If you can cite a page number, I’m happy to read the page with care and tell you whether or not you’ve backed up your original claim. It will be my opinion, and I’ll leave others to judge who’s right. If you can’t find the offending statement IN THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST, please bring this absurd charade to an end by acknowledging that you made an error and withdrawing your spurious and damaging claim. Until you do, I won't be responding to your posts

Dickie, my last for this thread.
I was conscripted unbeknownst to me to the Oregon petition, a practical joke by an American colleague to demonstrate how it could be faked. Other scientists of better known repute have been conscripted to the Heartland Institute’s list – likewise against their approval and certainly against their stance on climate change.

I believe Ian when he says he was not a member of the Lavoisier Group. The difference between his situation and the above (although he may correct me if I’m wrong) is that he concurs with their stated claims and objectives, whilst in ours we did not. There is a subtle difference.

Ian
Ah yes ... fond memories. Insofar as the SRES goes – you did not ask why or to what extent I thought the IPCC have erred in some of the scenarios. No matter, the reasons are better given in forums not constrained by word or post limits, as you have already experienced. Suffice to say, some projections are premised on government intervention which is unlikely to occur. We could argue the details, however it still is my contention that we (society) must start as soon as possible to curb our reliance on fossil fuels and adopt better land management practices. The current financial crisis may see to this (in the short term). A silly question may be, but did economists see this coming or econometricians factor such events into their models? I digress, ciao.

Almost forgot, fungochumley - this was for you.

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2008/11/foolish-views-on-climate-change-being.html

Bye

Thanks Q & A, my last for this thread too.

I’m not a ‘joiner’, in principle. I wouldn’t accept or retain membership in any organisation that pronounces on behalf of its members without consulting them. I declined to sign the open letter that ‘climate rationalists’ sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations during the Bali Conference last December - not because I disagreed with the general thrust of the letter ( I didn’t), but because I didn’t want to put myself in the position of having to defend statements with which I disagreed or which I wasn’t equipped to have a view upon.

My views are as stated in the papers, submissions and blog posts that I’ve authored and to which I’ve referred. As these are quite voluminous, I continue to wonder why most of the criticism directed at me is for things I’ve never said and, in many cases, don’t believe.

For example, I’m not an econometrician, and have been critical of what I see as the IPCC milieu’s excessive reliance on elaborate models (including econometric models). In my opinion, many scientists and economists have been lulled by the apparent precision of their models into supposing that the future is amenable to prediction. In this respect I concur with this recent comment by Robert Skidelsky, one of the co-authors of the economics part of The Stern Review: A Dual Critique:

‘Keynes described economics as being “one of those pretty, polite techniques which tries to deal with the present by abstracting from the fact that we know very little about the future”. One must bear in mind that Keynes’s aphorisms, which seem so apposite today, were for years dismissed with a pitying smile as the product of a primitive state of economic thinking that had been rendered obsolete by powerful desktop computers and PhD maths unavailable to economists of Keynes’s generation’ (“Keynes a man for our time”, Canberra Times, 27 October 2008).

Of course Skidelsky is one of the 'usual suspects', so Dickie doesn't see any need to examine the validity of his arguments

Your parting shots as you disengage noted, Q & A, but I will decline to follow the link provided.

Thank you for the post above Ian. It seems to me that Q&A and many others confuse economic rationalism with free market fundamentalism, and use the terms interchangeably. This article - a distant memory now - is a call for ‘climate rationalism’, and this is a more appropriate term than ‘denialism’, which is simply a projected reflection of climate absolutism.

He also seems to me to have difficulty distinguishing between management and control - of what economists, climate scientists and all people are realistically capable of. He subscribes to Quadrant, so has no doubt read Bob Carter's current article on the futility of climate control, but Bob too is one of 'the usual suspects'. (I wonder if he foresaw in his early career the witchhunt to which he would one day be subjected). There also seems to be a corresponding expectation of consensus and predictive certainty among the economics profession. Psychoanalytically, the fantasy of union and control is the driving force of narcissism

I said that my previous post would be my last, but Fungochumley’s latest persuades me to write once more. He’s right that many commentators confuse economic rationalism and free market fundamentalism.

In my Presidential Lecture to the Economic Section of ANZAAS (remember ANZAAS?) in 1984, I showed that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the leading classical economists – Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, the Mills and the academics whom Carlyle dubbed ‘respectable professors of the dismal science’ – were supporters of selective government involvement in the economy, and opponents of the unconstrained operation of the free market.

Adam Smith himself described his ‘Wealth of Nations’ as a ‘very violent attack upon the whole commercial system of Great Britain.’ He assailed ‘the greed of private manufacturers’, the excessive influence of private shopkeepers, the ‘oppressive and domineering’ conduct of the East India Company and the customs policy under which ‘the sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are ... erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire.’

Those who join with Carlyle in jeering at the ‘dismal science’ for ‘reducing the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone’ should know just what kind of government intervention he was advocating - and the kind of intervention for which he condemned the ‘respectable professors’ .

While Carlyle urged that unwilling workers should be compelled to work with ‘beneficent whip’ and told his friend Emerson that ‘two million idle beggars’ should be sold as [I can’t use Carlyle’s word: OLO’s edit has instructed me to ‘remove the profanity’], the respectable Professor Senior told his students at Oxford that Government ‘cannot of course enact that every family shall have five well-built … rooms, any more than it can enact that every family shall live on roast beef, but it can prohibit the erection of houses without drainage, or in courts, or back to back. It can require the streets to be paved, it can regulate their width and the thickness of the walls. In short, it can provide prospectively against the creation of new seats of disease and vice.’

IanC. Allow me to define the stark realities of your "beneficent" economic rationalism and free market fundamentalism. While you were crunching numbers at the ABS in the 80s and 90s on environmental matters, the gross behaviour of the corporate lechers - the eco-vandals you are protecting, were steering the Titanic towards the iceberg the IPCC must now urgently address:

1. "Rationalised" intensive agriculture is not only inflicting intolerable stress on the environment and living conditions on animals but increasingly requires massive slaughter events to stem the disease outbreaks its conditions foster.

2. Shell’s Victorian refinery has committed more than 300 environmental breaches in two years, including 145 between June and September this year (2003).

The EPA said Shell should aim to stop discharging toxic water into the bay within a decade. Shell has conceded to The Age that the refinery was unlikely ever to have complied with its EPA licence, first issued in 1973.

3. New York, October 8, 2008 — Judge Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set a trial date of February 9, 2009 for a human rights and racketeering case against the Royal Dutch Shell company (Shell) and the head of its Nigerian operation, Brian Anderson.

The case was first filed in 1996. The judge rejected Shell’s attempt to file additional legal motions to postpone a trial date.

“We are looking forward to finally bringing Shell into court, where we will prove their role in the torture and murder of our clients and their pattern of human rights abuses,” said CCR attorney Jennie Green.

4. At its AGM in London on 23 October this year, BHP Billiton was attacked over its record in the Philippines, Indonesia, Guatemala and Colombia, its failure to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its role in worsening climate change and producing a radioactive legacy for future generations.

5. Remember Mark Latham who claimed that Gunns run the state Labor government and that Premier Lennon wouldn’t scratch himself unless Gunns told him to?

contd..

Contd...

6. A 2000 lawsuit alleged Rio Tinto laid the groundwork for environmental disaster on Bougainville by improperly dumping waste rock and tailings, emitting chemical and air pollutants.

It is alleged the tailings turned the fertile Jaba and Kawerong river valleys into wasteland. Fish and whole forests died and water became non-potable, turning 30 kilometres of the river system into a moonscape.

As tailings made their way down the Jaba River to drain into Empress Augusta Bay, the Bougainvilleans major food source of fish was also destroyed in the bay.

7. In September this year, the Guardian (UK) reported that Rio Tinto, has been thrown out of a sovereign wealth fund's portfolio for allegedly subjecting it - potentially - to "grossly unethical conduct".

Norway’s Ministry of Finance said: "Exclusion of a company from the Fund reflects our unwillingness to run an unacceptable risk of contributing to grossly unethical conduct.

The Council on Ethics has concluded that Rio Tinto is directly involved, through its participation in the Grasberg mine in Indonesia, in the severe environmental damage caused by that mining operation," she said.

8. The drunken captain of Exxon Valdez was responsible for spilling 11 million gallons of oil, covering 11,000 square miles.

Within days an estimated 250,000 seabirds perished, along with thousands of otters and seals. A jury awarded 32,000 plaintiffs a total of $5 billion in punitive damages.

In 2007 the United States Court of Appeals reduced the amount to $2.5 billion. On June 25 this year, the United States Supreme Court slashed the punitive damages judgment for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which devastated Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The award was reduced from $2.5 billion to only $507.5 million—an amount equivalent to a few days’ profit for the giant oil company.

9. Of course allow me to again remind you of the global operations of Barrick Gold, the JV partner in the Kalgoorlie super pit. In 2005/2006, Barrick/Newmont emitted in excess of 5 and 7 tonnes of mercury, respectively over the Goldfield’s community:

http://protestbarrick.net/downloads/barrick_report.pdf

And your recommendations IanC or can I expect the usual, "no comment?"

Gee, dick, you seem to be holding IanC responsible for a helluva lot, including the drinking habits of seamen. I'm quite certain you will get no comment, until, as was made abundantly clear, you address the error you made above (re Lomborg reference) honestly, and stop trying to hide it by smearing the comment walls with more and more poop.