We’ve had ‘Climategate’ and now we’ve got Christopher Monckton running around denouncing AGW and gathering an enormous amount of support.

The whole deal really is in turmoil.

We are hearing the most polarised information and opinions, ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other, from;

climate change is proceeding much faster than we thought, faster than any of our models had predicted…

to

anthropogenic climate change is just one almighty hoax or conspiracy and there is just no way that us little old humans could possibly have the power to affect the global climate.

We desperately need a multinational royal commission to sort out who is right and who is having us on.

Despite Monckton’s ardent AGW denialism, he does make a bit of sense.

Most importantly perhaps, he says that we should be adapting to AGW (if, he says, it does happen to be real) rather than trying to stop it. And he says that there are a number of other major problems that we should be putting our energies into.

So if we could just see fit to refocus on the big social and energy-policy changes that we need in the lead-up to peak oil and for the development of a sustainable society, then we’d be much better off.

And hey, the sort of things that we need to do to meet these ends are just about the same as if we were to continue head-banging AGW (not including Rudd’s ETS).

A refocus onto things that are much more tangible to the ordinary man in the street than AGW is, could make all the difference.

At the moment, the huge backlash against AGW is also dragging us backwards in addressing these other enormous issues.

Ludwig,
Have you ever pondered cattle tracks across hillsides? they never seem to be the most direct routes....training/habit.
The great unwashed are generally the same they can't see beyond their own self interests. They tend to follow the same routes, habits etc.
On the Flag posts I made and demonstrated the point that most people will defend vigorously a know habit regardless if they understand it or not.

I posit that the same applies to people and AGW ....bugger the logic, science ....i can't see it so I'll believe those who believe the same as me.

Have you ever tried to tell a farmer that he's doing something wrong? even though you have the science oodles of examples what do you get?
Offense, Derision, insult, personal attack the lot.

AGW advocates, population constrainers, greenies , conservationists, even those economists that point to the magic pudding basis of current economics are attacked, because change threatens.
it threatens their known equilibrium/paradigm the one habit has made them comfortable with. It's the reasoning behind why Gods were invented to explain and comfort man with the notion of certainty, control.

It's why we seek explanations and defend them so vociferously even in the face of being wrong.

As a thinker, Ludwig, I am puzzled by your surprise.
Personally I expect it But I keep plugging away untill proven wrong or something changes.
Like the Oscar winning song says

" Once there was this silly old ant,
who thought he'd move a rubber tree plant,
Everyone knows a ant...can't
move a rubber tree plant.

But he has high hopes,
high apple pie in the skyyyy hopes.

Oops there goes another rubber tree plant!
oops there goes another rubber tree plant!

cos he had high hope
high apple pie in the skyyyyy hopes"
So any time your feeling low
just remember that ant,
who thought he'd move a rubber tree plant."

What else can we do?

Examinator
Who's "we"?

Examinator, you wrote;

<< …most people will defend vigorously a know habit regardless if they understand it or not. >>

Yes indeed.

<< I posit that the same applies to people and AGW ....bugger the logic, science ....i can't see it so I'll believe those who believe the same as me. >>

Absolutely. I’ve discovered this in the most glaring and quite pleasant manner over the two weeks that I’ve been on the Agmates forum. Wow, the vigorous denialism there from lots of people, none of whom could not possibly know the veracity of their assertions, is quite something to behold!

<< Have you ever tried to tell a farmer that he's doing something wrong? even though you have the science oodles of examples what do you get?

Offense, Derision, insult, personal attack the lot. >>

From a lot of them, yes. But the same goes for all of our society. I wouldn’t single out farmers.

I am a farmer’s friend. I am a true agriculturalist’s mate! Or at least, a mate of the sensible ones, of which there are many. But at the moment on that forum, only a couple of people can see that.

<< As a thinker, Ludwig, I am puzzled by your surprise. >>

I’m not surprised at the widespread presence of this attitude, but I was surprised at the incredibly one-sided and strongly attack-the-man-not-the-subject style of responses on Agmates. I had no reason to expect it to be significantly different to OLO, but it sure as hell is!!

I feel like an ant. But guess what, I moved a rubber tree plant a couple of days ago, from a big pot that could hardly be budged to a nice spot in the ground in the middle of my front yard!!

So yes, we’ll both keep plugging away, until we go CoMplEteLy mAaAaaD!! { ;~/)

Cheers.

Suddenly, when it was clear that Copenhagen was a political/social/economic engineering event which failed, fears of a looming catastrophe went away.

Now, the IPCC who fed the world with predictions of runaway doom scenario, have backed off as if the catastrophe is no longer looming.

The tipping point has stopped tipping. 'Soft' deadlines now appear as do 'aspirational targets'. Maybe it will be called Global Tepidity now.

Where's our catastrophe gone? No-one seems to care anymore. Why? Because no-one believes them anymore so they've virtually thrown in the towel.

The Bogey Man was never real. There never was any disaster looming, there's plenty of Polar Bears and species are not becoming extinct. The Western world is way less polluted than it ever was. And now everyone knows.

Examinator,
As Ludwig said, what you say applies to all of society. Very few of us can be objective about our beliefs.

I do not debate about religion because religous nuts will not concede anything, but still believe. I think our immigration is too high and I do not accept the ideology of multiculturalism, but put forward any argument for my views and, boy Oh boy, the attack dogs come out. Firstly, one is called racist and Xenophobic and it gets worse from there.

AGW is a religion to many and believers are currently in 'denial' about climategate and any discredit of the IPCC. Even though there seems to be more and more coming to light almost daily. I have seen Graham Young being blasted, here on OLO, for being biased if he allows an article that is written by a AGW sceptic.

You may be right though, that many will change their view if they think the majority of people have changed.

Has anyone else noticed that the PM has gone quiet about 'the great moral issue of our time' and that 'we must act now'.

Atman: << There never was any disaster looming, there's plenty of Polar Bears and species are not becoming extinct. The Western world is way less polluted than it ever was. And now everyone knows. >>

I think you need to get real, Atman.

What's happened is that the denialist spin doctors did their job very well, corporate greed and parochial self-interest prevailed at Copenhagen, and the denialosphere has gone into an orgy of short-lived self-congratulatory ecstasy.

Meanwhile, AGW continues unchecked, species continue to die out, and the industrial world continues to emit greenhouse gases more than they ever did. As everyone who's not in denial knows.

"...species continue to die out..."

Which ones, exactly?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/

Where Are The Corpses? 4 01 2010

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Abstract

The record of continental (as opposed to island) bird and mammal extinctions in the last five centuries was analyzed to determine if the “species-area” relationship actually works to predict extinctions. Very few continental birds or mammals are recorded as having gone extinct, and none have gone extinct from habitat reduction alone. No continental forest bird or mammal is recorded as having gone extinct from any cause.

Ludwig, you hit the nail on the head, there is much confusion and contradiction from both sides of the debate. Could be that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Skeptism, for so long abused, trivialized and suppressed is perhaps, now venting its spleen.

Even this article from Gilling/Muscat tries to merge the issues of “climate change” and “AGW”.

Today’s The Australian quotes the UK’s chief scientist, John Beddington, endorsed by our own chief scientist Penny Sackett, as referring only to “climate change” and not AGW.

This is an interesting shift and merging. I am fully prepared to accept that humans have caused local/regional climate changes. We can point to the Romans clear felling much of the Mediterranean 2,000 years ago and the Chinese clear felling what is now North Vietnam in the 13th century to build their “treasure fleets”. Local climates were changed.

Climate change is positively not what is being sold by the IPCC.

What is being sold is “global warming caused by human carbon emissions”. The political “sleaze” in linking something many skeptics could accept, with something skeptics will not accept, is straight out of “yes minister”.

Interestingly, the thrust of Beddington’s article is to implore scientists to “be truthful” and not to “exaggerate” claims. Astonishingly, he then goes on to refer to the IPCC’s science as? Yes, you guessed it, 90% certain. Oh dear.

Is this astonishing duplicity? Well yes and no. From a scientific perspective it’s now seen as utter rubbish however, from a political perspective it’s a perfect fit. The public is being “played with”. We are “ignorant”, “flat earthers” for being skeptical of their science. For politicians (and the MSM) who have invested so much personal credibility in AGW, the desperate search for a graceful “exit plan” is on.

That plan, as always, will be about “holding this policy until it no longer serves me”, thus providing stalling tactics and obfuscation. This is followed by the “laying of blame” and if that fails “I will take down with me, the people who left me out on a limb”.

Having listened and read about both sides of the debate,it seems to me that there are a lot of "experts" who have their facts from a lot of information that could be unreliable.But tending to lean towards the scientific majority that says we humans are causing global warming to some extent at least.I consider that as every person on the planet bears some equal responsibility, fairness dictates that the extent of amelioration that each country should bear should be based on their population.The family of Nations at Copenhagan was not able to sit at the table and share the meal of goodies and share equally in the washing-up and other chores.

'

This issue won't go away because the planet keeps getting warmer. The institutions that study climate continue to conclude that it's real, ongoing and not going away. That it looks to be hard and expensive to take effective action doesn't diminish the very high, verging on cetain likelihood that failure to deal with AGW will be much harder and much more expensive. The inability of our political institutions to deal effectively with what their scientific advice tell them about climate isn't surprising. Nor their capacity to put off hard long term decisions for short term expediency. But we allow them to do so at the peril of our and our descendents prosperity and security

Diploman, Ken, until the Bureau & the CSIRO publish a fully detailed explanation of their reasons for "correcting" upwards, the raw temperature readings in much of Oz, [for example Darwin corrected upwards by 2 C when the raw reading has not changed in 100 years], there is no chance I would be silly enough to believe a word they utter.

With more of the details of all the tricks these so called "Scientists" have used, being revealed every day, I find it hard to believe any thinking person, who was not a fellow traveller, could do otherwise.

Hasbeen

http://www.bom.gov.au/sat/SST/sst.shtml

If you have difficulty understanding BOM, perhaps you can contact them directly and ask. It sure beats the hell out of all the guff floating around the blogosphere.

Spindoc,
I think the point you refer to is more strategic than actual.

IMO it was always about Catastrophic Climate Change as a result of human interference.
I resisted the term AGW early in the debate preferring the above. Some accused me of trying to weasel out, I begrudgingly acceded to its usage. *7/08*

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7606#118570

IMO "AGW" is/was both a strategic and labelling poor choice. It misleads the public to believe that the problem is Anthropomorphic *Global Warming* and not the consequences of catastrophic climate changes. Due in majority (but not entirely) to man increasing to *excess* CO2. Thus forming * the smoking gun*(root cause ).
Science tells us that the GW will be uneven (patchy) and be based on averages, proxies etc.

Imprecise threats, complexity, averages, conceptual extrapolation, vested interests and people don't mix. They expect/demand decimal point predictable i.e. universal (local)immediately visible temp rise ! Logically, it was never going to work like that.

The mechanism by which this took place is/was complex,indicative and not decimal point accurate.

Like most complex theories it is still untamed around the edges.

This allowed the so called sceptics to conclude prove the *global universal heating* isn't happening viola! no problem.

Wheel out the narrow focused i.e. Geologists who proved it's all happened before.

.BUT...things have changed more people, uncharacteristic pollution (no prehistoric precursors, volcanoes/comets) Add a fanciful economic system underpinning the society and by any scientific deduction “Huston, we have a problem”. One that implicates business as usual.

This then raises the questions about the consequences of these 'real' symptoms.
Recently, I changed tack but not principal, arguing to ignore both sides' nonsense quibbling over hockey stick curves, proxies, starting points clouding the issue.
Instead focus on the consequences of the observable, provable factors, considering the basic science(physics).

See the retreating western Tibetan feeder glaciers water to 300million Chinese/Indian people.
Or the La Pas glaciers etc. satellite(s) data on the poles and water through out the world.

Clearly the (incomplete) AGW theory, imperfect as it is, does and gives us pointers.

examinator, I can't beleive you and Q&A are still playing with the science bit. The science is finnished with until and unless a new body replaces the IPCC.

For goodness sake, how long have you two been exchanging pro-AGW links?

You both need to move on.

Spindoc, you say:

"The science is finnished with until and unless a new body replaces the IPCC."

Precisely what part of the BOM link I provided to Hasbeen (in response to his assertion) don't you understand? ... nothing to do with the IPCC by the way.

Your comments are anti-science at best, anti-intellectual at worst.

Perhaps it's you that needs to catch up.

CopenHagen was a group of deceived politicians and evolutionist who in turn tried to pass on deceit. Why am I surprised? No wonder this 'settled science' has proven to be so fraudulent.

Q&A, obviously you have no understsnding of the subject, or you would not have given me a link which had no bearing on my complaint, or reason for their actions in "correcting" data.

Try reading it, before you push this rubbish again, please.

Quite cute Q&A, the point I was making was as you well know, is that without an official “vehicle” to deliver validated science to the politicians, there is no possibility of moving this issues to actionable conclusions.

As far as the BOM link is concerned it is just another scientific link, so what?

When you say, “nothing to do with the IPCC by the way.” Wrong, it has everything to do with the IPCC and only the IPCC, because it is the only official, internationally recognized body for the delivery of science to politicians.

You can’t have a BOM link conference or a NASA link conference.

The IPCC, through its compromised people and processes, assisted by outrageous NGO statements, is in “self destruct mode”, no politician can recover from continued support for them, the IPCC is a poisoned chalice and must be replaced. Then we might be able to move forward again.

You can trade “links” all you like but proselytizing will no longer generate converts to the cause. It may be entertaining for you, but utterly futile.

Hasbeen - you referring to the changes to Darwin temps that occurred when the site moved and got an immediate and obvious 2degree drop related to the new location (and not matched by nearby stations that didn't move)? The intellectual dishonesty in attempting to portray temperature adjustments that are done for good reason - and can be shown to have been done to ensure accurate representation of temperature trends - is typical of climate denialists. Selecting only a station that's adjustments might, as long as people don't enquire closely, look like something it isn't. Typical denialism - ignore a world full stations getting adjustments up and down, ignoring that there's no overall trend of adjustment favouring warming over cooling, just implying and accusing and hoping no-one looks a bit closer.
Anyone wanting to look a bit closer at the Darwin adjustment accusations that Hasbeen has been parroting try http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

examinator
You haven't given any reason for policy action, any reason to think that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages to any relevant group of people, and have also evaded the critical question: who is "we"?