interesting the reference to the 'Malleus Maleficarum' (the witches hammer)

Another word that comes to mind is 'Sophistry'.

Emotive arguements that hook the emotions over ride the more logical and critical thinking part of the human brain. Usually the first emotive reaction later proves to have been incorrect.

Film and documentary makers can do this with skill. These films can be portrayed as being unbiased, when they are heavily biased.

Another reference is too what is known as 'Successful Sociopathy'.
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html

oh dear Mal such a bad article. You promised so much and delivered nothing other than yet another plea from the right that it's okay to be sceptical of science if it doesn't agree with your world view. what was the point of this article? you can read a thousand others written by a thousand pundits on blogs across the political spectrum. Why not layout a path forward for your fellow right wingers to get to the land of reality. All you done is say their people on the left that have got the science wrong so it's okay for us to do it to. Just like the "debates" about evilution, gem theory and the flat earth the politics needs to be taken out of it, your article has retarded progress towards this goal not advanced it.
For those of you watching form home the phrase “Yet unfortunately rather than going where the evidence leads, ideology wrenches the evidence to fit a prior idea.” Is a dead giveaway . It’s a rather famous (infamous) ploy of anti-science writers to lead into a misdirection, accuse for opposition of the very thing you are doing

It would be interesting to see how many of the people who wanted to claim 'Weather is not climate' when things were cool are now eagerly pointing out high temperatures as proof of AGW. Of course, South America is currently freezing, Antarctic ice coverage is at a record high, and the satellite temperature record is heading down -- probably needs a good solid 'homogenizing'.

But it's all in a good cause, so AGW enthusiasts can lie and cheat and close their eyes to the facts. God says so. Sorry, did I say God? I meant the IPCC.

Oh dear, Kenny is not having a bar of this "skeptical is acceptable" business. I don't think he got your point at all and the moment it seemed you were not flaying skeptics, you're obviously wrong, paid by "dark interests" and right wing think tanks and all manner of the usual paranoia of the true religious fanatic.

No, if you don't believe, as clearly Kenny does, then there is no room for you, no tolerance at all, mind you I'm sure Kenny expects tolerance of his rather intolerant views.

Good article, asking for a reasonable debate, asking for reason at all is good.

I see though that many on the AGW side are just like Kenny and have completely suspended all reason and are now completely medieval religious thinkers, if you can call it thinking, and not just blind faith.

I'm not so sure about your comments Kenny. He is having a double-go at the media and how the climate argument has been framed. It seems more a call for clarity and a study of how we know what we know. I'm going with rpg here. I think 'sceptical is acceptable' is OK - or not, depending on which side of the fence one sits.

Magical thinking - that's when you think your weekly wage will be enough to save for a house deposit.

The least of the warmists' irrationality is in the positive science.

The far greater irrationality is in thinking that
a) positive science supplies the value judgments by which policy can decide whether people should live or die, and
b) government is capable of solving the problem by substituting for individual freedom, whole empires of centralized command-and-control bureaucracies, guided by reams of rules and regulations, and backed up by police, magistrates and prisons.

Underlying this belief system of the warmists, is the more general reverencing of the state. Like other irrational belief systems, this is also neither verifiable nor falsifiable. How do we know that government policies, interventions, taxes and subsidies are good for the environment? Why, because the government pays people who decide that they are of course – why else would they be doing them? And if they don’t work, what is the solution? More interventions of course!

The underlying irrational assumption is “Because problem, solution = government”. But no-one ever explains *how* the central planning authorities are going to displace existing production processes and (a) continue to feed the world’s population while (b) making a more sustainable and fairer use of resources: - apart from by simply assuming the intrinsic infallibility, perfection and goodness of the state.

The totalitarianism of the warmist movement is just another symptom of the underlying totalitarianism of the national socialism funding the science. Governments having paid tens of billions of dollars to tens of thousands of employees to find, from an astronomically complex data set, that the globe is warming, these government employees have dutifully gone out, and funded their mortgages and cappuccinos by finding, surprise surprise, that the globe is warming, even though 90 percent of the weather stations don't even comply with their own minimum accuracy standards!

Merely abolishing the government funding of warmist policies will not strike to the root. Government funding of science is inherently corrupting, and should be abolished.

I largely agree with the article, particularly in relation to the shift of the media's focus from journalism to entertainment, and the need for reasoned scepticism in this, and all debates.

However, we need to be wary of clouding scepticism with outright denialism, which is very much a large part of the climate-change debate.

I think there is enough evidence to warrant preventative action. In a business environment, if a risk assessment were to be carried out in the face of the amount of evidence we have for climate change, action would definitely be taken.

Too many people are denying the possibility of climate change purely because of the inconvenience it poses, or other personal reasons, not because of any form of healthy scepticism.

These denialists can be compared to the hard-line Atheists who are even more dogmatic in their beliefs than most religious believers. After all, the non-existence of a god can't be proven any more than the existence of a god can.

Healthy scepticism involves, with critical analysis, a willingness to change your mind in the face of the evidence.

I think there is enough evidence of risk to warrant preventative action...

(A lot more evidence than we had to invade Iraq and kill thousands of innocents)

..and in the process, slow down the depletion of non-renewable fuels.

An interesting article, Malcolm, but, flawed, I feel, through a lack of attention to basic premises and definitions. You say:

"I suggest that most Australians are, by definition climate sceptics. They do not side with the climate warmers nor do they side with the doubters. They are simply undecided...."

A sceptic may well be undecided, but is not defined by just his/her indecision. Wiktionary, for example, defines "sceptic" as:

1. Someone undecided as to what is true and enquires after facts.
2. Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs and claims presented by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

Given those definitions, many of those who support the proposition of human-induced climate change could be called "sceptics" because, in the first instance, they doubted the received wisdom of the infinite capacity of the Earth to absorb thermal abuse and then went on to gather information that eventually became strong evidence. One only has to plug into RealClimate.org a few times to see how sceptical scientists are of each other as a matter of process.

I suspect that you, Malcolm, and many others, are confusing scepticism with cynicism; again, appealing to Wiktionary:

cynic (plural cynics)

1. A person who believes that all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully negative.

One only has to look at how many anti-AGWs immediately assume that climate scientists are in it for the money. If only!

Which is not to say that climate scientists haven't attracted a large following of true-believers who are cynics in that they suppose that the carbon lobby is deliberately trying to ruin the planet.

A touch of retro-modernism, where we keep a focus on established facts could help elevate the discourse above its present level of pro-and anti- AGW cynicism

Excellent article

People “are simply undecided. And one cannot blame them.”

It can only come from a state of extreme hubris where anyone can presume the significance of human activity and carbon release is the cause of any supposed global warming

Kenny suggests the science is in...

I would observe, the “science” of economics has been around for a few centuries and we are still arguing its influences,

The science of global warming is but a few decades old and Kenny reckons it is not “OK” to be sceptical - but a clue

“yet another plea from the right”

From which I predict our "Kenny" is “of the left”

Which explains his somewhat flawed, reasoning

The left desperately believing in the myth of collectivism, are anti-right, anti-capitalist and therefore “individual scepticism” is simply something else to be “anti” about.

We must conform to their uniform view that Global warming and that collectivism is good, regardless that common sense tells us the exact opposite.

Truth will only ever be revealed by questioning and "anti-sceptics" start by denying all individuals the right to question

Same old left-wing thinking

Environmental and climate-activist movements were infiltrated by Trotskyites and other dingbat entryists a couple of decades ago

And they are still at it... promotion the politics of their previously failed collectivist philosophy, trying to force everyone to conform to their illegitimate demands through the false application of pseudo science.

Be sceptical... it is good for your wealth, health and real liberty.

Do you notice how none of the warmists in here have actually addressed the issues?

TrashcanMan says that he thinks “the evidence” justifies governmental action, as if measurements of temperature self-evidently justify steps that will destroy some people’s livelihoods, make some people poor, and still others rich or dead as a result of political decision-making.

But he doesn’t show how, either in technical or ethical terms, *how* he reconciles the human utility of the status quo, as against the human utility of the result he is trying to achieve. Nor does he address any of the issues to do with whether how governments are going to achieve it: forcibly replacing productive processes that are currently responsible for supplying billions of people with food, shelter, clothing, transport, communications and entertainment, and replacing them with something that will do all that, *and* make the globe’s climate be more sustainable *and* be more fair.

He simply ignores the whole issue as if it had not just been pointed out, and satisfies himself with assserting that the positive data supply his entire conclusion.

And Jedimaster relies on the proposition that human activity involves “thermal abuse” of the climate, which is of course what is in issue in the first place. But ‘the climate’ is not a god to be propitiated with human sacrifice. The question is whether detriments to human wellbeing from the status quo would be lesser or greater than the detriments to human wellbeing from policies intended to replace the status quo with a better and fairer system. And what reason or evidence does Jedimaster supply for his contention?: appeal to absent authority citing past temperature measurements!

I have shown how my skepticism could be falsified. You could show what is in issue.

But the sign of the unfalsifiability and therefore the irrationality of the beliefs of Trashcanman and Jedimaster is that when their circularity is pointed out, do they acknowledge the logical error and then show how their beliefs could be falsified?

No. They simply *repeat* the original circular belief.

Stern and other dogmatic denialists posing as sceptics,

There is evidence global warming MIGHT be accelerating due to human-related activity, and the aforementioned warming MIGHT have significant impact on future humans.

I'm not saying WILL, I'm saying MIGHT.

You're saying DEFINITELY WON'T.

You're saying: DO NOTHING, IT DEFINITELY AIN'T HAPPENING.

I assume you don't lock your house when you leave because, although there is evidence you might get robbed, there is no evidence you DEFINITELY WILL.

I, on the other hand, am very sceptical I will be robbed today. It's unlikely. But I locked my door, because the risk is there, and it's worth being cautious.

It's not hubris to have concern about the future based on gathered evidence. It may turn out to be unwarranted, I admit. But it may not, in which case it is better to have locked the door than to come home to find the house pulled apart.

And economics is a social science, based on unpredictable human behaviour. Climatology is based on Physics and Chemistry, hard sciences. Don't make such a shallow comparison.

I'm not saying we should all be preaching the end of the world like those on the extreme left... I'm saying we should be weighing up the risks based on the evidence we have, rather than waiting for 100% proof, which is just impossible (and you'll probably deny anyway).

BTW, I hope you're right.

TrashcanMan
'Stern and other dogmatic denialists posing as sceptics'

Ho hum ad hom

I'm not saying 'definitely won't'. I'm asking, how do you know?

Why don't you answer the questions I have asked?

I am highly sceptical that global warming if it exists, is due entirely to human activity.

My main reason for this, is that the climate on this planet has changed all by itself in the past, without any input from us mere human beings.

This does not mean I support pollution or activities that cause pollution.

If climate change did not happen in the past, we all would still be living in africa and the human migration would not have happened until much later in history.

tcm "Too many people are denying the possibility of climate change", are you saying that there are people who "deny" that the climate changes?

I'm skeptical about the reasons for warming being blamed on CO2, and have doubts a tax can solve it, I am also skeptical that we can change the climate to something we like - as in, go back to that wonderful time when everything was perfect .. when was that?

What do you want to change the climate to?

I doubt you can find anyone who "denies" that the climate changes, there was another OLO poster VK3 something or other who firmly believed that, and when challenged was never seen again, as his whole argument was based on berating people who "denied" that the climate changed.

Now we could pollute less, clear less land and I'm sure mankind has influenced the climate - but to insist on CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION NOW! in the form of taxing big business, reducing reliance on fossil fuels is just beyond reason.

If we were serious about removing fossil fuels from electricity generation, then we would go nuclear and pour money into research into reducing or reusing waste - the fact that the same people who want to reduce coal use are also against nuclear energy, makes me realize they are not about climate change mitigation, but against progress (Caldicotts and Luddites).

Don't p*ss my taxes away on renewable schemes that make the likes of Gore and Flannery rich, spend on renewables with real long term outcomes - nuclear.

The climate changes and many scientists are on the money wagon for funding because they are human and it is available, very few research actual causes of climate change, most research the effects.

Australia will be reduced to a 3rd world economy if greens and AGW activists get their way.

Peter Hume, I do not think it is up to the people who accept and understand the science on climate change to continue to provide "evidence", it is out there is abundance. Yet there is still no substantive peer reviewed work, published in a reputable journal by appropriately qualified people which provides evidence to undermine AGW. Even the great target, the University of East Anglia's climate-research unit has been exonerated after numerous enquiries. I for one am pleased to see that the report on the latest inquiry included the footnote that the police are investigating the hacking. Strange that people would place some much faith in evidence obtained by illegal means.

Moreover, I think the characterisation of the exchanges between deniers and supporters (to call it a debate is to overstate the matter) as being left v right is correct. The posts the have been made on this website at least are better described as people who understand and believe in the scientific method versus those who deny the science because it does not support their personal viewpoint. The vitriol thrown at supporters that they are lefties, reds, stupid etc are just feeble rhetorical gambits to derail the conversation rather than points of debate.

Science is not decided by votes or populist rants, but by evidence. Basically stating that all of science is wrong and I know better because I say so, is not going to convince me.

Peter Hume

After being chided by our good moderator, Graham, for comparing the faux-lord Monckton's climate-change denying article to a Monty Python skit, I have been careful to couch my comments in words that are more befitting of a sceptic (q.v.) than a cynic (q.v.).

I notice that you have used a number of rhetorical devices that the afore-said faux-lord also used (note that I do not infer causality from this correlation or coincidence). To wit, first, metaphor: Monckton (in the talk that he gave in Sydney that I paid to attend) used the concept of "iatrogenis", ie "of or relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment"- ie is the cure more damaging than the complaint. Of course this is a plausible issue. But rather than explore the data, Monckton, and Hume then proceed to rhetorical device #2: the "straw man (or person) argument, ie implying that all kinds mayhem of will ensue from the scientist-inspired/ leftwing politician edicted/ mindless bureaucrat executed iatrogenic programs.

And #3- the incomplete evidence at hand: Hey! Graham gives us 350 words to strut and fret our tale. I referred to RealClimate.org- which is a scientific shorthand for providing evidence, which you derided as an "appeal to absent authority citing past temperature measurements!". It is not absent on the internet- and what is the alternative to "past temperature measurements"? I cannot conjure up "future temperature measurements". Which refers to rhetorical device #4- implying that the past is ipso facto irrelevant. That may be so for Zen Buddhists, but not climate debates.

So- although you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts- and it would be nice if you acknowledged the source of your opinions- such as they are- as coinciding with the afore-said faux-lord Monckton's.

It really has nothing to do with "skepticism". And certainly nothing to do with science or any kind of truthfulness.

It is about bucket loads of money honey. A systematic propaganda campaign financed by the usual suspects--the right-wing Global Spin machine.

It so happens that today I came across references to a book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway titled:

Merchants of Doubt--How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Loxton and Jedimaster
You have both assumed that tempoerature measurements settle all the ethical and economic issues involved.

Let us assume, very much in your favour, that there is no issue as to climatology, nor with your definition of the alternative state you are trying to achieve by policy.

The issues are
a) technically and ethically, how do you know and how do you determine the human detriments from the status quo with the human detriments from government action?
b) Again very much in your favour putting aside any question of corruption, fraud, privilege etc. how do you know whether government can, and how they can, achieve the results you want? How do you know they can continue to supply the world's population with food, clothing etc. while simultaneously closing down productive capacity and replacing it with relatively loss-making alternatives? What reason is there to think that political decision-making and government bureucracies using the instruments of rules and regulations, backed up by police, magistrates and prisons, are capable of knowing, planning and carrying out what they would need to know, plan and carry out to achieve what you are trying to achieve?

Malcolm - I'm happy to clear up any confusion with my recently released book. Drop me a line on ecocriminal@optusnet.com.au and I'll send you a copy.

The basic thrust of the article is irrefutable. Skeptics have been demonised - not put down, or dismissed or overcome with logical argument, but demonised. Even mild expressions of doubt draw very nasty, even bitter comments, often followed by completely baseless accusations of being part of a conspiracy. On top of all that the warmists will then accuse the doubter of being "biased" and even "emotional" about their "beliefs". I have made every effort to remain polite, but often the behaviour of warmists has beggered belief, and the fault is largely on the warmists side.
As for the science which has been debated in these posts, as I point out in the book the science is largely irrelevent. The IPCC is, in effect, running a gigantic forecasting system - in fact, three interlocking forecasting systems, the first one of which depends on economics (for foecasting emissions) not on science at all. Even if the science is right (note the if) that is quite a seperate matter to the forecasts being right, even within the very broad paramters sent in those forecasts, and even if they depended solely on science. Getting forecasts right is very, very, very, very, very, difficult.
At no time have the scientists or even their critics shown any real understanding of what it is these forecasting systems are trying to do. Forecasting is a commercial subject, incidentally, not a scientific one

Peter Hume,

They are good questions, of which I don't have the answer. These are the questions that need to be asked in this debate. We don't have evidence to 100% prove or disprove one thing or the other, so we need to be looking at the level of risk associated with action and inaction.

However, the article calls for scepticism, which I support. My argument is purely that we need to differentiate between healthy scepticism and obstructionist over-scepticism, or denialism, which is stifling debate (just as much as over-zealous 'warmists' are inhibiting constructive debate).

One question I have for hard-line sceptics is this: "How often have they gone out and looked for evidence FOR human-induced climate change?" They are rarely forthcoming with an answer.

Peter Hume

Shall I continue?

Rhetorical device #5- false assumptions. Where did I say, or even imply, that all ethical issues are settled by science? I didn't say it, and never would.

#6- insisting on absolute certainty about future events. Of course we don't know what the impacts of the policies might be. We can guess, or estimate, but we don't know. On another planet, long ago, I was responsible for some government programs and formulated a policy assessment matrix- ranging from inputs to throughputs to outputs, outcomes and impacts and classified as quantifiable, nominal or indicative. Needless to say, the matrix gets fuzzy towards the bottom right- ie it is impossible to quantify some of the impacts- like the extent of shonky work by insulation installers. You can nominate that it might happen, but how do you estimate it?

Moving on to #7: keep on repeating the above 6 rhetorical devices. If you do it often enough it might stick. Like "moving forward"?

If we were to follow Hume's approach, it would seem that we would reduce government to an absolute minimum, as he does not believe it can ever do good. Was it too much, or too little government that gave us the Global Financial Crisis?

Thanks Ho Hum, I got the book out of the library this week and am looking forward to reading. Is OLO in there as a case study?

Peter Hume, you are not arguing about the science, you are arguing about the role of government. Two different things.

Curmudgeon, good to see you weigh in on this! I think "demonised" is a bit over the top and nothing compared to the rants against the CRU, the IPCC and others that I have seen in these and other pages. I do not think that it is demonisation to ask for evidence. The climate scientists have provided mountains of evidence. I note there have been a few mistakes (the galaciers) or misinterpretations (CRU - although I'd argue that selective leaking from illegally obtained e-mails hardly constitutes evidence), but these have been acknowledged and corrected. By now the weight of evidence is in favour of human induced climate change and each extra bit of evidence reinforces the case rather than detracts from it.

As a true sceptic, I will give due consideration to any substantive, peer reviewed science published in a reputable journal, if and when it appears.

TrashcanMan “Stern and other dogmatic denialists posing as sceptics,
. . . .
I'm not saying WILL, I'm saying MIGHT.
. . . .
You're saying DEFINITELY WON'T.”

No, I am saying

on the balance of probabilities and considering the very poor quality of the dubious pseudo-science presented to date

Most likely, "not”

Whilst all variations in climate in the past are a matter of fact, they were not due to any man-made influence.

However, whatever did influence/cause previous climate change variations, it is still quite capable of being the cause of any climate changes today.

I see you choose to call me in a less-than-complimentary manner.

I do not need it and you do not either

So, just make some effort to grow up, when mixing with adults, if only to humour me.

Finally, it is hubris in the extreme to presume man can change the climate of this earth...

The exact same hubris which was held by those who thought the sun orbited the earth.

tcm .. "One question etc etc etc rarely forthcoming with an answer."

That's because it is difficult to disprove a negative.

An example, since this is a common demand from AGW believers.

A chicken runs into the room "the sky is falling"

Skeptics response, "why do you say that, do you have evidence the sky is falling"

chicken little " well, no - but can you prove it's not falling?"

If he ran in saying it is going to rain elephants, unless we receive funding to research how to stop it. Sometime later says, we can stop it by investing in concrete lined hole production, I'm a director of a company that does that! Once funded of course and no elephants rain down on us, the solution is deemed to be a success!

It's going to be difficult to get research funding for such research. Application for funding, "I wish to investigate the premise that mankind is not inducing additional climate change", well where to start eh, that's the rub. It's impossible to disprove.

Anyway, as mentioned before the climate changes, yep, we all agree on that, and most of us agree that land clearing and pollution probably contribute to it - but where do you draw the link that it is "proven" and that taxing CO2 producers will somehow change or reverse this?

Australia, a pissant in the world, has to destroy our economy to satisfy what appears to be more religious passion than scientific method.

If the warming is natural, then any whacky solutions now will be celebrated as being the reason why the climate has changed for the better .. much like the elephant case above.

There is no real debate, because every government funded forum, excludes skeptics .. tell me of one that did not? There have been several recent Climate Change fora, no skeptics allowed - why? If the science is so clear and settled, why not invite skeptics?

Stern, what are your credentials that you can pass it off as 'pseudo-science'? Or is that just 'hubris' on your behalf?

Of course ALL of the "skeptics" and their many backers would have supported the world-view and hence the actions of the barbarian techno-cratic invaders depicted in the recent Avatar film.

A truth-telling parable for our times.

A modern re-telling of the mythology of USA cow boy "culture". There are always new frontiers to conquer and subdue.

Manifest destiny.

The techno-barbarians power and control seeking world-view, inevitably "created" a dying planet--so they had to conquer new "frontiers" (worlds) to even survive.

Such has always been the imperative of the Western "cultural" script.

Amicus

Whereas Hume commits the follies of rhetoric, you seem to be prey to the follies of false logic.

If the chicken claims that the sky is falling, then it could be asked: "at what rate have you seen it falling?" The chicken should be obliged to come up with a velocity, otherwise one could infer that it is deluded, because to claim to see it fall one must see it at a lower height at a later time. The sceptics could then debate as to whether the velocity is a natural variation insky height or a significant variation from the sky height.

If, however, the cjhicken claims that "the sky will fall, but hasn't yet", then we have a very different argument.Unless the chicken can point to a statistically significant number of situations where all the precursor events to a fall have been present, then we might deduce that the chicken is paranoid.

The present climate debate is surely like the former claim, not the latter. There is a vast amount of corroborative evidence that the planet is warming at a rate faster than any statistical variation can account for. This change is correlated with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. We can't "prove" that anything is going to happen tomorrow, but we rely on strong correlations - I'm betting that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Again, you imply that the cement hole makers are in league with the chicken. No-there's economic opportunists everywhere and it's an old adage that "where there's muck there's money".

And why are there no invites in your letterbox? Well- these guys only invite people who understand and play by the rules of logic and reason and evidence that Socrates and Galileo suffered for.

In other words, show us that you reason and logic system is viable and we might use it instead of time-tested empiricism and even invite you to the party. Until that happens, you'll either have to dine alone or with the other users of Humpty Dumpty logic.

Loxton - to complain that the rants against the IPCC is over the top and that therefore justifies the wild-eyed, extremely pesonal denounciations of those who have expressed mildly sceptical views is ridculous. And demonisation is not extreme. That's what's happened, like it or lump it.
As for the bit about refereed article where have you been? The refereed articles all now clearly point to cooling for the next few years. Is that what you want to hear? But in any case peeer review of scientific articles simply has nothing to do with forecasting.
The only way to verify a forecast is to check it against data unknown at the time the forecast is made. Sorry, the IPCC forecasts don't cut it. In any case, there has been plenty of peeer reviewed material casting doubt on the science, it just hasn't been thrust in fronmt of you. Again read my book. Happy to send you a copy. Drop me a line on ecocriminal@optusnet.com.au.. although you could always buy it.

If the chicken claims that the sky is falling, then it could be asked: "at what rate have you seen it falling?"
Jedimaster,
The chicken would more likely than not be answering " Dodo !"

Sceptics assert that believers should not be given any credence, unless their beliefs can be proven beyond any doubt. Believers say that you need to accept some unproveable premise on which to base beliefs. The two percieve the world differently. It has always been thus, and the extremes of the two will always demonise their opposites.
Malcolm,it is churlish to assert that sceptics are being demonised whilst in the same breath demonising antisceptics.
Interesting though. It is normally the sceptics who resort to use of scientific facts to refute the premises on which believers base their faith (religion for example). With climate change, we have the believers citing science, and skeptics refuting it

Human populations do affect the weather.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020613urbanrain.html

How much do human populations affect the weather?

Healthy scepticism is not a bad thing and certainly in the climate change debate there is enough confusing 'science' on both sides for the layman to digest.

Sceptics have often been the subject of ridicule but some with good reason - it took a while for some to accept the earth was not flat.

There is no point lamenting the lot of a sceptic, it is a fact of life and happens in most debates, it is called difference of opinion and the vitriole is often present on both sides.

Malcolm you fall in to the same trap of seeing this issue through a political lens with your blithe dismissal of decades of science from all over the world with the trite comment "While there has been some fine science carried out on global warming ..."

Taking a more considered view, the US National Academies of Science recently undertook a comprehensive re-assessment of the evidence and concluded once again, that we're in strife unless we substantially reduce our emissions: http://americasclimatechoices.org/

Genuine sceptics, people who are really trying to sift and weigh the evidence, are of course critical to any public debate. But plenty of people who call themselves sceptics are simply deniers, holding to that position no matter what and refusing to actually take the time to go through the evidence. To fail to see the distinction between genuine open-minded scepticism and bloody-minded denial is a curious oversight. There are very good reasons why some who call themselves sceptics are derided. For genuine sceptics, there are some useful resources here:

Ian Enting's demolition of Ian Plimer's laughable book:
http://tinyurl.com/PlimerErrors

(How anyone could trash their academic reputation so comprehensively at the end of their career is beyond me!)

A useful Q&A seeking to address many of the sceptic concerns:
http://users.monash.edu.au/~bparris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html

Morgan, G. and McCrystal, J., (2009) Poles Apart: Beyond the Shouting, Who's Right About Climate Change?, Scribe, Melbourne.
[They use panels of advisers from both sceptics and scientists]

Sea-levels for the last couple of decades:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Lenton, T.M., et al. (2008) "Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, February 12, 1786-1793. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full.pdf

Solomon, S., et al.(2009) "Irreversible Climate Change Due to Carbon Dioxide Emissions", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, February 10, 1704-1709. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full.pdf+html

Battisti, D.S. and Naylor, R.L., (2009) "Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat", Science, Vol. 323, No. 5911, 9 January, pp. 240-244. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22374/battisti_naylor_2009.pdf

- the last three for those fighting a culture war and are content to gamble our children's future on it! All three papers are online for free.

Loxton states: I do not think it is up to the people who accept and understand the science on climate change to continue to provide "evidence", it is out there is abundance. Yet there is still no substantive peer reviewed work, published in a reputable journal by appropriately qualified people which provides evidence to undermine AGW. Even the great target, the University of East Anglia's climate-research unit has been exonerated after numerous enquiries.

It is unscientific to say that the AGW hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation. The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years.

It is not surprising that the University of East Anglia's climate-research unit has been alleged to have been exonerated , as the socalled 'inquiries' have all lacked impartiality, having been conducted by warmists or their sympathisers.

Scientists, once beleived that flight was impossible, because once man was more than a few feet off the ground, he would not be able to breath, hence the hot air balloon experiment.

Scientist, once beleived that motor vechiles would not be able to travel faster than around 30mph (I think this was the speed) because again humans would not be able to breath.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/18/97-of-scientists-do-not-believe-in-the-theory-of-catastrophic-man-made-global-warming/

To believe that science is infalliable, because it isn't. Basically science is about testing a hypothesis to see whether it is true or not. So science is constantly changing as new ideas and insight and evidence are discovered.

Not sure how many posters can advise me on this but here is my personal challenge with climate change: almost all available articles are either political, environmentally motivated, religious or dooms day conclusions.

I can't find any article or proper research made by an independent body of scientists and business people to agree on a consensus which can be convincing either way. Until then I am shamefully indifferent on the topic.
Perhaps someone from the posters can help?

Its not skepticism it is denialism.
The evidence and science is as unequivocal as it can be.
To deny it is to blind ones self in a stupid and selfish display of dogmatic hubris and ignorant inhumanity.

Thanks Malcolm, a thought provoking article. I also like the analogy with the dark ages as there are many similarities with history, as there always are. The Church of Rome responded to the Lutheran threat by sending in the Jesuits to protect the faith and the Cardinals.

Our modern Jesuits are the intellectual elite. Having convinced themselves there is no God, the intellectual elite actually need AGW as the basis for them to take over the role of the creator – i.e. nature (or God) no longer controls the planet – man does. And they can’t leave that to individuals can they? – They must take control. So anyone who says “actually, mate, it’s down to nature and bad things happen” takes away their raison d’être and must be suppressed.

The panels, reviews, hearings and citizens assemblies are not the actions of science; they are the actions of “defenders of the faith”.

Geoffrey Lean – Consulting Editor on the environment for the (UK) Daily Telegraph on the formation of “another” panel (six conservationists and one businessman) said this week;

"William Lewis [the Telegraph editor] has asked me to help redefine its environmental coverage and policies and I am enormously looking forward to taking up the opportunity."

I think it was the words “coverage and policies” that gave it away. Good to know that MSM is supporting the intelligencia by defining policies that will finally take control of the News. I guess what makes the Jesuits so amusing is their predictability. Still, they will be happy that they have so many gullible followers, but I guess they always did.

mikk, call it what you will and I know some people feel better if they can get away with insults on OLO, calling someone a denier is certainly intended as an insult (as in holocaust denier).

Regardless of the insult, it does nothing to advance the belief of AGW, simply berating people is unscientific, calling on authority is unscientific, but that's all we ever see on OLO.

We also get demands that skeptics "prove" AGW isn't happening, as above, it is up to the proposers to prove it and all they do is point to "overwhelming evidence" piles which do not prove it, they point to related papers but again, no proof - they say we simply refuse to see it - but please refer me to a paper that proves increasing CO2 is causing increasing world temperature, that's all we keep asking for - where is it?

BTW - the evidence may be "unequivocal" you, but clearly it does not overwhelm a vast portion of the population of the world, otherwise Copenhagen would have succeeded, wouldn't it?

Your little dummy spit - "To deny it is to blind ones self in a stupid and selfish display of dogmatic hubris and ignorant inhumanity"

Is about as close to religious "superiority" as you could get.

Is it any wonder when we see displays like Mikks that AGW believers get called religious fanatics.

Bring on the inquisition Mikk, we can all see you'd just love to!

Emotional yes, rational, I think not.

“I dare any pollsters to conduct an Australia-wide survey and ask people how global warming works or how a carbon emissions trading scheme would operate.”

Better still, and more to the point, ask Julia Gillard how it works – she wouldn’t know. Gillard is going to pick 150 people off the electoral roll to tell her. What a load of rubbish! Even Rudd would not have dreamed of pulling such a silly stunt. She could get 150 morons, 150 warming alarmists or 150 people who think GW is a load or rot, and nothing should be done. It is highly unlikely that she will get 150 rational, thinking and intelligent people from such a silly lucky dip.

Where did the figure of 150 come from? Since when did 150 unknown people speak for the rest of us?

Julia Gillard is barking mad. And the latest polls say that she will get in with a landslide! That makes the majority of voters barking mad, too.

I don't think that the more radical sections of the environment movement are alone in their scaremongering re the end of the world. For 30 years the media has been fascinated with doomsday cults, earth smashing meteorites, tidal waves (real or imagined) and all things nasty.

It's easy to make the jump that people are the problem especially if you tie it in to systems thinking and chaos theory where everything is connected to everything else, although there is considerable tension between these two ideas.

I consider myself a climate sceptic but I'm willing to endorse and let people act on a precautionary principle ie, lowering carbon emissions. I'm far less convinced about population (I'm with Latham) in Oz and rising sea levels.

Dear Fellow Human

Let me take you away from this land of Humpty Dumpty and cucumbers made of moonbeams to a land where sweet reason prevails and people laugh and smile and try to help each other. It's called RealClimate.org. It is a very well structured website that is run by climate scientists but much of the stuff is accessible (in an intellectual sense) to laypeople and beginners. They even let anyone blog, but it is moderated, so you have to be good mannered and try to stick to the subject at hand.

It's doubtful if you'll meet a lot of other OLO-ers there, because the above- mentioned conditions don't seem to suit their nature.

Leigh,

You ask: "Since when did 150 unknown people speak for the rest of us?"

Every so often, for example in a month, the people of Australia elect 150 people, some known, some unknown, to parliament. Within months, it sort of gets down to the business (at least on paper) of making decisions of great and small importance on behalf of the people who elected them. No major delays, no two years of planning and preparation. And, since they are human beings, they differ about issues and rarely come to any sort of consensus.

So, Julia, good luck trying to generate consensus in 2012 from a random 150 people.

And even if they all did agree, which is hardly likely, so what ? Would their consensual decision be binding on parliament, on the elected representatives of the Australian people ? That might create an interesting precedent, one which future governments would be happy to engineer in their search for a 'random sample' of Australians.

And if there is no consensus this time, will we prepare more carefully for another gathering, perhaps in 2015 ? Because it is important not to rush this sort of thing, to get it right.

Yeah, sure.

"Denier" is not an insult it is simply a state of fact.
The evidence of climate change is, to anyone with the slightest intelligence, overwhelming and has been for years.
That these so called "skeptics" are only "skeptical" where it comes to the science of climate change says volumes.
They usually arent skeptical where it comes to godbothering and hell and damnation. They usually arent skeptical where it comes to nuclear science. They support the likes of Monsanto with their monopolistic "science" of GM. They are happy for science to improve their lives and give them more stuff. Happy to live longer and better off the backs of science and scientists.
But when science tells them they might have to drive or fly a bit less or turn the lights off occasionally or god forbid be cold or hot with a bit less air con or heating they get all "skeptical".
Forgive me for being less than courteous to such fools and idiots with their closed and blinkered minds refusing to see what is plainly obvious to anyone with the basics of scientific knowledge. Which we all should posses unless you didnt go to school and youre too lazy to read a bit.
Ignorance is despicable.

Mikk- Just because you are "convinced" does not make the unconvinced fools. Perhaps its you who are wrong, as horrible as that prospect seems. Its the warmists who are preaching damnation, albeit under a new religion. Its they who want to restrict the freedoms of the world to discuss and disagree.Maybe you have never read information from the other side of the ledger? You're being a conspiracy theorist, just as the author describes.

This article is a very good bit of work outlining the current dominance of ideology over reason. Good work, Malcolm.

so jedimaster, why do you bother with OLO when nirvana awaits full of happy people, who laugh and smile and all get along and help each other and .. and .. gush?

No one who disagrees or is skeptical, (in the right way of course)

Where skepticism is redefined as people who .. well, all jolly well get along and all believe together, yes, that's the scientific way isn;t it - and who all gong together to lambast anyone who doesn't belong or believe, in the correct way. No questions please eh.

Gosh, it just sounds so .. wonderful!

?

Mikk "The evidence of climate change is, to anyone with the slightest intelligence, overwhelming and has been for years."

So it's all so obvious that much of the world laughs at it, cannot come to agreement on it and could care less - why not have a look at just 2 countries, India and China .. are they all believers, or are they "deniers"

Deniers is an insult, it is a deliberate tool to try to recast skeptics as something else - bad luck buddy, it isn't working, you'll have to do better than just spleen venting to change the world.

Please do keep it up though as the irrational ranting of the truly hysterical and sarcastic to skeptics, just reflects the desperation and deceit of science losing its way in the climate segment.

Dear rpg

The psychological term for your latest contribution is "projection":

"the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

I describe OLO as "Humpty Dumpty" with reference to Alice in Wonderland where Humpty said:

’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ’it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’ That quote is frequently used to describe people who make up their own rules as they go along.

I cited some definitions of sceptic and cynic in my first post (page 2), pointing out that I thought that the words were being used incorrectly. Scientists take definitions very seriously- how can we make confident statements about the world of unless we agree that we are talking about the same thing?

In my view, if we can't agree on basic definitions, then we may as well just give up. Our civilisation is built on consensus in laguage.

Do I need to remind you how the anti-AGWs jumped on words like "hide" when they were used loosely by CRU scientists in their "Climategate emails". If they have to be scrupulous in their use of language, then why shouldn't you?

Why do I persist with OLO? Good question. Maybe it's an internet equivalent of the "food miles" debate- I try to participate locally, forever hopeful that the discourse on these important topics doesn't degenerate into a slangfest.

What you don't seem to understand, rpg, is that scientists delight in disagreeing with each other. Finding that somebody got their sums wrong is as exciting as coming up with a new sum, so to speak. Only they are courteous about it.

There is a big difference between a robust debate and trading insults. I hope that you can comprehend the difference

There are climate change skeptics and climate change deniers.

It's really important to distinguish between the two.

Skeptics cop a lot of flack that is probably meant for deniers. The two seem to have become conflated.

Like Abbott's statement that climate change is "crap." That's the kind of emotional and irrational statement a denier would make, not a skeptic.

As for Gillard's 150 off the electoral roll - now she's seriously insulting the voters if she thinks that's going to do anything but make us all laugh like drains.

jedimaster - "What you don't seem to understand, rpg, is that scientists delight in disagreeing with each other. Finding that somebody got their sums wrong is as exciting as coming up with a new sum, so to speak. Only they are courteous about it.

There is a big difference between a robust debate and trading insults. I hope that you can comprehend the difference"

Ah yes, I did read the CRU emails - did you?

If you did, I can only imagine you cringing now.

I'm not impressed by whitewashes etc .. did you read the emails, did you actually see what these "scientists" said, robust debate, I think not.

Did they "delight in disagreeing with each other", of course they didn't as you do not .. you only wish to pour scorn.

TCM “Stern, what are your credentials that you can pass it off as 'pseudo-science'? Or is that just 'hubris' on your behalf?”

I hold a couple of professional qualifications which have trained me in the skill of reading behind the spin and looking for the footprints of real evidence which distinguish probable result from bulltish.

Please declare the credentials you hold to allow you to define me as a “dogmatic denialist” and to think you are competent to challenge my view?

One observation is it is an extremely small mind which cannot accept that people, being a most diverse species, will hold alternate views on any and every given topic…

TCM you are simply demonstrating such lack of understanding.

A character shortfall which disqualifies you from deciding, for the rest of us, who is a denialist and who is a sceptic.

HoHum “Such has always been the imperative of the Western "cultural" script.”

Ok – got an alternative –

And before you vomit forth with some Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite drivel…

I mean an alternative which has some likelyhood of working,

rather than the failed theories of collectivists which have a 100% record of complete failure.

Lilsam “Sceptics assert that believers should not be given any credence,”

Actually I see the skeptics as being open minded and open to debate.

As always, it is the zealots (in this case) of climate change who are the ones who vilify skeptics as “deniers” want t shut down discussion and demand that opposition to their view must be censored..

For instance mikk thinks “To deny it is to blind ones self in a stupid and selfish display of dogmatic hubris and ignorant inhumanity.’

But your hysterical dummy-spit will never stop me from expressing commonsense, mikk…. And as rpg suggested

“Bring on the inquisition Mikk, we can all see you'd just love to!”

Torture the Cathars and burn the Huguenots…….. again

Leith…” Gillard is going to pick 150 people…”

yes and she will cherry pick 1% of suggestions like they did last time and with the Henry report…..

The appeasement of spin and cover-up of incompetence

rpg

I have read enough of the CRU emails to understand that they are what they were intended to be- private.

A significant aspect of the internet is the extent that it has mediated a merging of the public and private worlds of people.

I worked in a university at the time of the development of the internet, then later in the public service as it became commonplace.

There were furious debates (one led by John Maddox, the editor of Nature) about the way the internet was being used to "publish" results. He saw its use eroding scientific standards, as "un-refereed" information and analysis was being given widespread currency. Maddox saw the distinction between "private" knowledge- which, in most of us is a disorganised, incomplete mixture of data and emotions- and "public" knowledge, which has these artefacts removed. Only this public knowledge can give us a firm foundation to build our actions upon.

When the internet became commonplace, it enabled many people in organisations to efficiently discuss work-in-progress that previously had been done face-to-face, acknowledging the uncertain status of the data and views. There was widespread consternation when people found that their nascent and confidential views had been recorded permanently and were being monitored and subpoenaed to be used against them. This was seen by many, at the time, as a gross betrayal of trust by organisations. However, times have moved on and many people in organisations are more circumspect about how they commit their views to print.

Except that the rise of "social media" has enabled virtually everyone on the planet to vent their personal feelings, beliefs and sometimes information- most of it unmoderated and un-edited.

Scientists, in their private lives are probably no more virtuous than anyone else. The difference is that in public they have extra-ordinarily high standards as to the language they use and the certainty they ascribe to their findings.

Either - use the ill-gotten hacked emails to mount a conspiracy to defraud case against the CRU scientists, or turn over the criminal hacker who has betrayed the trust of these scientists- and ordinary citizens.

Of course the elephant in the room is the possibility that the pro-warming scientists are just plain wrong. The problem with attacking those who have no idea (sceptics) is that the pro-warming lobby make no friends and are classified as rat bags or loonies.

The Internet can provide a home to extreme positions from both sides as they hide in anonimity.

Well said Jedimaster.

First, find and prosecute the clear criminal, the hacker.

As part of his sentencing, he can reveal the exact path of his findings. This can no doubt be expanded upon by investigators and be used to ascertain the totality more thoruoghly.

In the meantime, I am much more confident of the good intent of climate scientists than I am of the objectors. "she'll be right" is so confidence raising.

Rusty

jedimaster, if you are happy with the corruption of the CRU folks even after reading the emails where they collude and plot to skew results and hide their data, then you are the same as they are.

The fact that you gloat over it, to me means you are so far down the AGW believer track, that you have no credibility.

You are actually a denier of justice.

These people are publicly funded, their results and data have world effect - it is NOT private.

It's the same as any data or emails in the workplace, they are not private.

There's no point conversing with you further, as you are clearly adamant that CRU are innocent, regardless of their own admissions in the emails.

Yes, there were whitewashed, by their own buddies in the UK recently - but in time, like Lindy Chamberlain or any others, there is always justice eventually when these things get revisited.

I wonder who did release the emails into the wild, you see I suspect it was Phil Jones himself, he sure doesn't look good does he - he's not gloating, he looks like a man whose conscience is burning.

Good luck living with your view of the world, I will not bother with you again. You certainly are not open to skepticism, you are clearly and adamant believer in the AGW religion.

to the absent rpg

I'm sorry to se that you're quitting just as things were getting interesting. I will assume that others are interested in the matters that you've raised.

The point I was trying to make was that a lot of these emails go back a long time, and contained personal in-talk. If you've never said anything in private that you wouldn't want heard in public then you're a unique human, if not a saint. This stuff was digitised personal chat- the idea that this stuff is public domain is relatively new- hence my comments about corporate people being more circumspect these days.

A comparable situation was in my time as a senior public servant- back in the '80s we all carried big red note books and wrote copious notes at ministerial meetings- with the belief that the notes would help us do our job better. By the end of the '90s the note books had disappeared because they were considered "public record" and were used and abused by oppositions. The only thing that was recorded was the agreed outcome of the meeting. Hence the rise of the notion of "plausible deniability"- the Minister could deny that he/she was informed and there was no record to prove otherwise.

By exposing private emails (as distinct from emails that are clearly intended to be formal information) we are closing down a vital component of creativity.

As an illustration of this, would rpg like to come out from behind his/her codename so we can see who it really is who jumps to conclusions and slags people on the basis of a few paras in OLO. We use these codenames so that we can explore ideas with a degree of immunity- OLO, I am sure, is trying to advance public discourse, not provide a gaffiti wall for frusrated people.

BTW- would you like Phil James to sue you for defamation re your accusation? It's quite plausible that he could, although you assume that because you said it on OLO you are exempt and immune- like the assumptions made by the scientists at CRU.

Stern,

Being able to see through spin doesn't qualify you as an expert on the validity of a whole branch of science.

I can see through spin too. i.e. Labelling climatology as a 'pseudo-science' is classic spin, especially when inaction is advocated on the basis of economic 'science'. Having a commerce degree I have a fair understanding of the plethora of variables that plague economic forecasting.

If you cannot acknowledge the amount of evidence currently available concerning the prospective risk of global warming as being sufficient to warrant considering it as being possible; if you are saying "I won't be convinced until it is 100% proven"; then you are being more than just cynical. It is denying it, pure and simple. And, considering you are in this forum PUSHING your opinion on it, fighting of minute details and pulling inconsequential holes in people's arguments, that tells me that not only are you denying the possibility, but you're being DOGMATIC about your stance too.

Amicus, disproving a negative is difficult? I'm not asking you to do that, although I'm pretty sure that just means proving the positive, which depends on how much evidence you have. I think you mean proving a negative is difficult, true? Which i'm not asking for either...

I'm asking people to read articles/papers that support both sides of the debate, not just those those that support their own position. It's difficult to do, I know it. Very rarely do I meet someone who has a very strong opinion about something who has actually done this sort of balanced investigation

Jedimaster, I think you may have been distracted by the CRU emails. It is the other information released along with these files that contain the real deceit.

A Person or persons within the CRU were so concerned with the way this research was being conducted, that they released not only all the questionable files but intentionally added “pointers” to all the things that were, in their view as a professional(s), scientifically unacceptable.

The “HARRY_READ_ME” files contained within the CRU files point directly to, and provide examples of, lost/deleted data, arbitrary data insertion, data duplication, flawed modeling applications, lack of data integrity and corrupted data bases. None of these issues has been addressed or explained by any of the inquiries and this is why the science and the reviews are being questioned.

I posted the following on another thread. If you don’t wish to look at the other side of the scientific debate or question your own, that’s fine, that’s your decision. May I suggest then, that you look at AGW as a phenomenon?

Green/Armstrong audited the IPCC’s forecasting procedures (December 7, 2009) against the evidence based forecasting principles. They also compared the AGW alarmism to 26 other analogous alarms since 1798 none of which eventuated. Of the 89 applicable forecasting principles, the IPCC violated 72. They concluded that:

“Our analysis of the 26 analogies leads us to the following forecasts about the global warming movement:

1. The predicted disasters will not occur.
2. Costly government policies will continue to be implemented in response to the alarm.
3. The manmade global warming political movement will dissipate over the years.
4. Many government programs will remain in place.”

You seem to be one of the few warmers that remain belligerent but are not looking for an exit strategy.

Perhaps it’s time you started looking

Spindoc

Clearly, you have looked into the CRU situation much deeper than I have. There are 3 issues here- one is whether the CRU scientists cooked their books, the second is whether the CRU data makes any difference to the AGW conclusions and the third is the main issue that I am tackling on skepticism vs cynicism.

On the first, three reviews have exonerated them scientifically- but chided their language and transparency. When are the hackers, or their fellow travellers going to come up with a similar level of review which points to fraud rather than - as far as I have read- a lot of juicy, inconsequential bits and pieces. As a skeptic, I await your report, because I can't accept your claims until you do.

I understand that the CRU data is only one of about 5 data sets around the world that essentially agree with CRU's AGW claims- are the other groups doing the same? Again, as a skeptic, I must await proof.

On the third matter, I can't identify any point where I have not stuck to the point of the essay- where have I been belligerent, other than insisting on being a skeptic? I'm not a band-wagoner for any band or wagon. I insist on seeing the evidence- and I like it dished up according to Galieo and Popper's rules of empiricism, not Protagoras's rules of sophistry- amongst which is the art of tackling the person, not the subject.

I must say I really feel for Socrates- there seem to be a lot of cynics around all too ready to administer the hemlock to skeptics who insist on seeing data connected by logic and reason.

Jedimaster, this has been a fast moving issue however, you do seem to be many months behind the key events. You refer to the “ill-gotten hacked emails” and that the “criminal hacker who has betrayed the trust of these scientists” should be turned over.

They should be turned over but there is a problem, the criminal(s) are from within Professor Phil Jones own unit. That is why the terms of reference for the various “inquiries” were narrowed to include only professional probity not the science or methods.
On December 28, 2009, Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen, the chief UNIX systems administrator for the PW Group, a major Canadian publishing firm, generated a detailed forensic analysis of the released e-mails and “the files”.
PW Groups analysis of the file headers, footers, digital fingerprints and audit trail data confirmed that these files were not “hacked”. The files were digitally tracked to “archive”, as would be expected of up to ten year old emails. The rest of the files and data however, were very current

They can only have been deliberately sent or physically loaded onto a server from archive with a file location identifier supplied to an external source so they could be accessed. The action to “restore from archive” is an administrator function requiring “root level authority”, high level security access. Add to this the fact that data fingerprinting confirms that this entire file was sent to a BBC location two weeks prior to the files being made public.

Continued:

Continued:

The emails are a (deliberate) distraction because they are the only “defendable” part of Phil Jones saga. For those who insist that all were “exonerated” I can only suggest the absence of objectivity.

You say you await my report on the emails? You will have a long wait. Like I said they are a diversion, if you want to reach rock bottom and then start digging, be my guest.

The main indictment of wholesale deceit is in the files, not the emails. As I have just evidenced. You might ask yourself the question, why would a high level insider at the CRU leak these damaging indictments?

To your three points,

Was the CRU cooking the books? Well according to one of “their own” at a high level, the answer is absolutely yes. What is it about the HARRY_READ_ME files you are not getting?

Whether the CRU data makes any difference to the AGW conclusions? Whose conclusions?

The only official internationally recognized and politically sponsored assessments on AGW are the UN’s IPCC. The main contributors to the IPCC assessments are the UK MET. Office, the CRU and Pennsylvania State University (Michael Mann). Just look at the state of the CRU systems as detailed by “Harry” and tell me if you would fly in a 747 built by these systems? You work it out.

Your third point you say is your main issue, “tackling skepticism vs cynicism”. I have two comments. Why? And good luck.

OK jedimaster, I'll come back for just one thing .. your threats .. as baseless as ever, but in keeping with the AGW belief mold, next you'll be with mikk insisting on the inquisition for heretics.

"BTW- would you like Phil James to sue you for defamation re your accusation? It's quite plausible that he could, although you assume that because you said it on OLO you are exempt and immune- like the assumptions made by the scientists at CRU."

Where is my defamation?

Here is my one mention of Phil Jones "I wonder who did release the emails into the wild, you see I suspect it was Phil Jones himself, he sure doesn't look good does he - he's not gloating, he looks like a man whose conscience is burning."

So again, where is the defamation?

Otherwise, I'll now retire as it is useless trying to communicate with fanatical AGW believers. I see spindoc has tried to educate you and you even admit you have not read the emails or the other releases, yet you still hold that's it's private

rpg:Your statement

"I wonder who did release the emails into the wild, you see I suspect it was Phil Jones himself, he sure doesn't look good does he - he's not gloating, he looks like a man whose conscience is burning."

is defamatory- or more strictly speaking, libellous, by any one of a dozen definions of the word that you can easily find on the internet, which all have the statement:

"If a comment brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory."

I doubt that you could plead under the provision of "fair comment", which would require you to demonstrate it is true.

I'd guess that Phil Jones has more to worry about than people in the antipodes slagging him.

And where did I make a threat? I asked: "would you like Phil J(on)es to sue you for defamation re your accusation? It's quite plausible that he could.."

As to spindoc's attempts to educate me: "HARRY_READ_ME" was comprehensively dealt with in the inquiries.It was a beat-up. The cynics seized upon his loose language as signs of deep deviousness.Read RealClimate.org- why not blog them - they do post contra blogs if they are civil. You might get to correspond with the leading climatologists- Gavin Schmidt is most helpful. Dare you

Jedimaster,

May the farce be with you and all that!

With each post your getting to sound more like Darth Vader!
(hardly becoming of an emissary of science!)

Are you sure you’re not from the dark side?

JM tries to do with intimidation what his logic and argument cannot.

None of the CRU inquiries dealt with the science, but you know that and hope to bluster your way through.

What a guy!

The skeptics really have you rattled, don't they?

Amicus

I reflected on whether to withdraw from the debate, given the vitriol being projected towards me. But I will persist, as I can't see why your approach to debate should prevail.

Two points: First the point that I was making about libel, etc, if you read my thread with the same care that it was written, is that we all say a lot of loose things in "private" media- such as some people thought that email was- and a lot of people think that OLO and Facebook are today- even Tony Abbott admits to that. Despite the opportunities that the law provides for redress, most people let it wash over- and I am one of those. It comes as a surprise, therefore, when somebody breaks with that ethos. The CRU hacker, in my view, broke that ethos. Your alarm that I might be threatening legal action indicates to me that you are very concerned about this ethos- if it suits you.

Point 2: You say: "None of the CRU inquiries dealt with the science". Have you read the Muir Russell Report? Quote:(Findings)

13. ... On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

jm neither of your points deals with the science, they deal with the behaviour.

keep grasping though, it's fun to watch you squirm.

Jedimaster, I speculated earlier that you were “one of the few warmers that remain belligerent but are not looking for an exit strategy”.

I was wrong, you followed with;

<<Again, as a skeptic, I must await proof>> and in the same post you said;

<<There seem to be a lot of cynics around all too ready to administer the hemlock to skeptics who insist on seeing data connected by logic and reason>>

I missed the fact that you are defending the warming faith whilst at the same time insisting that you are a skeptic? This is both your exit strategy and your schizophrenia.

I note that you have greater computing skills than the entire PW Group by still insisting that the CRU files were “hacked”. <<The CRU hacker, in my view, broke that ethos. >> (Posted by Jedimaster, Monday, 26 July 2010 11:17:53 PM), which nicely avoids the many questions that real skeptics are asking.

You are in good company Jedimaster, there are many warmers showing the embryonic stages of exit strategies, the profound confusion, the “bob each way”, the bubbling frustration, the tearing schizophrenia and the elevated fundamentalism as reality starts to bite.

Gullibility has a harsh price.

Keep on digging.

Amicus

To misquote Maggie Thatcher- this man is not for squirming.

Your response exemplifies the difference between your approach and mine to this issue- which in turn seems to be a microcosm of the discourse at large: I present data, and draw inferences from it (which, in the spirit of Popper) are open to refutation by other data, logic and reason. You, in turn, ignore my data, as such, give an unsupported interpretation and then follow up with a personal jibe, insult or insinuation. I grew up with that kind of behaviour in the woolsheds and bars of WA in the '50s. "Wake in Fright" is a good depiction of that behaviour.

Does this point to a widespread failure of our education system, or is my sample skewed by a preponderance of anti-empiricists participating in OLO?

Now back to your claim of behaviour vs science: First, I thought that you and rpg were claiming that the CRU scientists were behaving badly, as well as cooking the books. The two findings I exerpted above deal with both. Secondly, if you read the findings of Muir Russell (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34003747/Muir-Russell-Final), you will see that they go on at length about many aspects of the science -several dozen in fact- all of which support CRU and the science.

Muir Russell, did, indeed, comment adversely on some of CRU's behaviour. Although it is quite possible that some of this behaviour is due to unacceptable professional rivalries, it was found by Muir Russell to be of no scientific consequence. Some of the behaviour was possibly due to CRU essentially being a typical bunch of scientists- introvert, nerdy, focussed on ideas not people etc- who were pushed out of their comfort zone by the waves of public requests for info-many of which were demonstrated to be vexatious- although not all.

The climatologists have taken note of this issue of dealing with the wider public- have a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/. Not only are they self-critical, but invariably courteous.

That's my model for discourse, not "Wake in Fright" or a '50s woolshed.

The issue is not whether the climate is changing, it is whether policy action on global warming is justified.

Putting aside any issue of climate science, and any issue of corruption and fraud resulting from policy action, it seems to me the warmists’ irrationality is in three categories.

Fallacy of normative conclusions from positive science
Science does not supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them. Therefore measurements of temperature do not, of themselves, provide any justification of any policy.

Yet we see this fallacious assumption constantly repeated throughout the arguments of the warmists above and in public debate, as if “science” self-evidently or overwhelmingly justifies policy action; and as if the qualification to judge is expertise in climatology.

Justification of policy action requires two further steps. Policy action must be technically capable of achieving a better outcome than the status quo, and it must be ethical in the first place.


Economics
If policy action is to maintain the same population at the same standard, the warmists inherently assume that governmental control or direction of production is capable of being *more* productive than the status quo, in that it will provide the same benefits with fewer costs (to the environment). It will be more efficient at economising specifically those resources that are not subject to private property, and therefore outside economic calculation.

Ethics
There are already food shortages in the world now, and the policies urged on the most productive nations by the warmists, massively reduce and divert production from more productive uses, to less productive uses. And that is to say nothing of the ruination of livelihoods, and the political enrichment of some at the expense of others. And is everyone to have an equal claim? If so, how is that to be reconciled with private property?

If policy action is not to maintain the same population at the same standard, who is this fictional “we” who is to decide who shall live and who shall die? No warmist ever answers this question; nor even acknowledges the ethical issues

To argue that we cannot be 100% certain before action, is
a) to assume that the warmists have made their case before they have, and
b) to inappropriately export an empirical assumption about knowledge from the physical sciences, where it is appropriate, into the ethics and economics.

It is not valid in the ethics because ethics is not a positive science. For example, we don’t deliberately or recklessly kill someone and then try to measure or statistically quantify the resulting grief to determine whether it was morally wrong.

And as for the economics, we already know central planning is incapable of being as productive as the status quo, not only as a matter of empirical science, but because the belief in the superior productivity of central planning does not even meet the prior threshold test of a logically sound belief system (because public ownership abolishes the possibility of economic calculation except as depends on the remaining private ownership).

The economic illiteracy and ethical confusion of the warmists either does not comprehend or care that their approach *necessarily* involves either fallacies on the one hand, or crimes against human rights on the other. They assume or assert all the arguments for central planning that failed so spectacularly last century, at such enormous cost in lives and misery; only this time the claim is made on behalf of the long-suffering climate rather than the long-suffering proletariat. All the other assumptions are unchanged.

Underlying all the positive science of the warmists is an irrational belief in government, a superior mystic entity over and above society that is all-knowing, all-good, and all-capable, and which can abolish natural scarcity by legislative fiat; a complete fantasy that has no basis in reason or evidence.

But if it does, please answer these two questions:
a) How is government to know whether all the costs of a given policy action exceed the benefits
b) How is government to weigh up and reconcile the inconsistent claims of all people involved?

Peter Hume precises the limited cognitive skills of the warmist lobby

The application of collectivism, when collectivism has failed repeatedly is, through the aggitation of entryists, the real reason for warmist and enviromentalist hysteria

As Lenin said, “Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement.”

and I have seen it written in even more succinct terms -

Socialism By Stealth

Jedimaster

I appreciate your continuing the argument. Unfortunately, OLO is an unreconstructed pro-denialist site. In answer to your question, denialists are not very prevalent anywhere else. Even the CEO of BP is quoted as saying the science is clear and we need to take prudent action.

Certainly, none of the denialists who have posted on this thread can claim to have posited a logical argument and have done nothing but prove the original contention of the article by "dancing on reason's grave".

I am still waiting for the peer reviewed work which counters that global warming hypothesis. I have asked for this many times and the closest I have gotten to an answer was from Cumudgeon who told me to buy his book which of course is no answer at all.

Loxton I think you will find OLO is pretty even-handed. Well, actually I'm going to have to revise that first sentence. I'd never think of posting here without researching, or at least thinking quite hard about, what I was going to say. So I did a Google search on On Line Opinion using the words "climate change". Guess what? On the first page 8 out of the 10 entries are unquestioning that climate change is man made and a serious threat. Not sure that this is "even-handed". We may have a problem, but not of the kind you assert.

I like this article because one thing that it proves is that skepticism is not confined to one side of the political divide, as many want to assert. Malcolm King is associated with the left. As are many who are skeptical in Australia and overseas. All polling shows that while right of centre voters tend to be more skeptical, there are certainly lots of left of centre voters who are too.

Polling also shows that there has been a move away from belief in the IPCC scenarios, which may explain why our comments threads appear to be more skeptical these days. I chose the phrasing of the last sentence carefully not to use "skeptical" in the first proposition. I think the whole skepticism/believer dichotomy is a political argument rather than good analysis. Anyone who seriously studies this area has to be a skeptic.

I get labelled a "skeptic" but in fact I believe that man is changing the climate by emitting carbon dioxide, so I'm not skeptical of global warming at all. I just have a different view as to how much of the change is manmade, what the consequences are likely to be, and what you should do about it, to the IPCC. But when you burrow into the views of the people who make up the IPCC authors you'll find they all differ from the final conclusions in some way or another. If we are any good at the science or the policy, then we are all skeptics.

Graham
I, for one, am not questioning the even-handedness of OLO- that is, your endeavours to present a wide variety of essays from a wide variety of perspectives. If that weren't the case, then I would depart.

However, there do seem to be a preponderance of bloggers, as distinct from essayists, who are anti-AGW views. This, in itself, is not my concern. What concerns me is the style and tone of many of these bloggers, which can be described by the definition in my earlier blog as cynical, not skeptical. I consider myself a skeptic in all things- I want to see the facts before I will accept a line of action as viable- I do not "believe" in anything.

Unfortunately the words "climate skeptic" have grown to mean what I define as a "climate cynic", ie:

1. A person who believes that all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully negative.

Witness the responses to my attempts to clarify ideas and seek information- derision, scorn, abuse and vitriol- not very enlightening stuff.

Many blogsites have a button labelled "report abuse"- it would be well used on OLO.

With regards to polls, Graham- polls of whom?- the general public who rely on the general media for their information. The media that have been unrelenting in their anti-AGW bias in the past several years.

Of course, our poll-driven politicians will respond to public perceptions.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman: Nature isn't fooled by public relations- or cynics.

Ummmm, there is a report abuse button on OLO. It's the red cross to your left.

I wasn't using polling as proof for or against global warming, merely suggesting that if it is accurate then you will find there are more skeptics around. And if there are more skeptics around then you will find more skeptics on open forums like this. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly.

I'd never rely on polling to test the truth of a non-public opinion hypothesis. Which is why I've resented attempts to corral people on the basis of a "consensus". Looks like you've got over that argument too.

Climategate's done a lot of good things. Many won't admit it, but seeing the level of malfeasance that went on at East Anglia has really shocked a lot of people about how the whole thing had gotten out of hand. It has opened the debate up, even though the establishment is trying to whitewash the whole thing.

Graham
It's not about "recommending comments for deletion"- it's about lifting the standards.

I don't mind what opinions people have- what I mind is abusive language. I can't see any place for it- I think that it demeans the authors who have invariably made great efforts to write something cogent.

Some of these abusive people seem to think that their language is part of the rough and tumble of public discourse. I disagree. As I said earlier- I grew up in shearing sheds and near front bars. A most unedifying experience. Verbal abuse flows seamlessly into other areas and other kinds of abuse. To me, it is a repugnant and dead-end kind of behaviour.

There is plenty of scope for robust, energetic, witty and skeptical discourse and discussion- searching for a synthesis- which is different from a consensus. But if people are cynical (qv) then they are not open to change. Cynics are just looking for someone to abuse.

Jedimaster: I’ve just this evening happened across this discussion and have to say that your ability to remain dignified, courteous, and coherent under attack from a platoon of snipers who, for the most part, display none of those characteristics is inspirational.

JM, a button which allows you to draw the attention of a moderator to a comment is indeed a "report abuse button". The mouseover says "Recommend this comment for deletion" but plenty of your fellow commenters have used it to notify me of a range of things to do with posts, and abuse is certainly one of them.

I suggest that if you want to raise the tone of debate you use it. You'll be aware that I edit comments from time to time, but most generally delete the whole comment with a note as to why it was deleted.

If a post is abusive in any part I generally delete the whole of it. It's part of the penalty for using abusive language that the whole of your post goes, not just the abusive part.

Jedimaster
I have shown three reasons why the arguments for policy action on global warming are irrational.

Please answer these questions.
a) It’s true isn’t it, that facts do not of themselves, supply value judgments and therefore that positive science does not, of itself, justify policy action?
b) How is government to know whether all the costs of a given policy action exceed the benefits? (By ‘all costs’ I mean those which can, and those which cannot be calculated in terms of money.)
c) How is government 1.to know, to 2. weigh up and 3.to reconcile the inconsistent value claims of all people, both now and in the future, affected by any proposed policy?

The argument on the warmist side now seems to have degenerated into merely asserting that those who don’t agree that policy action is justified are ‘denialists’, ‘cynics’ etc. This involves two fallacies: assuming what is in issue ie that the warmists have already established the justification of policy action; and name-calling.

However not only you, but *everyone* will be rationally unable to distinguish skeptics from mere denialists while ever the advocates of policy action have not been able to make their case.

From where we stand in this thread at least, the problem is actually the reverse: it is the advocates of policy action who cannot be brought to reason, and who seem to regard ignoring disproofs and repeating fallacies as providing all the justification they need.

Peter Hume,

There has been no science released that categorically disproves the climate change theory. Sure, there are plenty of examples of reputable scientists questioning the science, questioning the projections etc, which is necessary for rigorous scientific debate.

So it's true, the actual threats posed by global warming, and the actual involvement of human activity is not 100% known.

But there IS enough evidence to suggest it is very possible, and no reputable scientist is out there saying it is impossible.

So, with the possibility of global warming having a significant impact on the livelihoods of future generations, and with the possibility that the extent of aforementioned global warming can be reduced by changing human activity, there is an obligation to take action.

Your arguments about not knowing the exact costs etc are irrelevant to the fact that the obligation is there in light of what IS known.
It is the government's job to do their best to make the decision based on what IS known, not to avoid action because of limited available information. If this was to be the case, no decision could ever be made by government.

We invaded Iraq and participated in the complete destruction of their society and the deaths of thousands of innocents based on a much poorer understanding of the facts, after all...

The problem that the advocates of policy action do not realise they are facing is this.

Robinson Crusoe might perhaps directly compare the productivity of catching a rabbit with catching a fish.

But modern civilisation uses much more complex methods of production. For example just to produce a pencil, someone has to make the steel to make the truck to go into the forest to cut the timber; and someone has to make the wheat to make the bread for the sandwich of the timber-getter. Then it has to go to the mill, the factories, the trucks, and shops, and so on. And this just to make a pencil.

With a population of six billion, and millions of goods and services, you have to multiply the population and goods *factorially* to figure out how many simultaneous equations the central planning authority would have to solve to even begin to equal the status quo at its efficiency in allocating resources to their least wasteful uses. (And remember, that’s only at any given time. But the data are changing every second – rain falls, people die, others are born, innovations appear, people’s relative values change.)

The advocates of global warming policy action do not realise that they are blithely assuming that there is an entity that is capable of seeing through all this vast complexity, variability, uncertainty and motion, and distilling out of it the parts of the economy they do think justified, from those they don’t; and then in practice distinguishing them by rules and regulations.

The reasoning is false when followed to either end. If we go downward into the production possibilities, the astronomical number involved is not and cannot ever be within the knowledge of the central planning authority, no matter how clever he or his delegates are. The knowledge of any such authority, compared to the currently operative knowledge of six billion, is as a pin to a galaxy.

And if we go upward to the supposed source of the authority’s knowledge, we come out at democracy – the knowledge set which he is explicitly charged to override!

Peter Hume
I'll ignore the small lapse into derisive comment and focus on your substantive questions:
a)Your first question is actually two questions. I agree with the first on the basis of simple definition. Facts are not values. The second is almost a tautology, but the gist of it is that science (or publically shared facts) informs policy action.
b) Governments have to make this call all the time- that's what they are there for! In my time I wrote scores of Cabinet submissions which included cost-benefit analyses. Some were "back of the envelope", others included months of careful research. Of course not all of them turned out the way we predicted, but, in most cases "doing nothing was not an option". That's life- or civilisation as we know it.

c)See b). But further, you reasoning is somewhere between "straw man" and "absurd limits". Management is sometimes defined as decision making to maximise policy outcomes in the face of incomplete information. We never (or rarely) know everything about a situation where we need to make a decision. Given that we only have one world, we can't do "out of town (or planet) trials" to test our theories.

Global warming is not the first situation where we have had to rely on the available science. AIDS comes to mind- there were actually relatively few cases in Australia when the $100 million "grim reaper" campaign was launched in the mid-'80s.

In the absence of a detailed net energy analysis (NEA) of everything we do, I am inclined to agree with Garnaut and Turnbull (and I think the Fed Labor Government) that an ETS is a simple and efficient way of getting many people to take the right action and avoiding your concerns. Tony Abbott's "direct action" sounds good, but absent an NEA, we don't really know if we are actually using more energy than we are trying to save if we follow his detailed and prescriptive program.

..and Loxton- thank you for your kind comment.

To err is human...

I meant to thank GlenC for his kind comments about my contributions.

Some of Loxton's comments are unkind (about others), but I cannot prove that they are untrue.

Jedimaster
All I can say is, you are assuming what is in issue, and have not established a case for policy action in the first place.

oh good grief .. "What concerns me is the style and tone of many of these bloggers", there's someone who want to be Sherriff, hey, why don't you release an acceptable standard's style guide to blogging according to je.. oh, it's not your site, as you were everyone ..

No, the attacks, and intimidation and snide remarks and insults are all to try to deflect any skepticism, as much as some people insist they are are "the only real skeptics", they are in fact, just pretenders trying to recast and redefine "skepticism" .. I have seen them now recast as cynics and as "faux skeptics", keep trying, it just draws yet more attention to the desperation of the warmists.

Skepticism can take many forms, they do not all have to comply with the deputy sherriff's standards.

Loxton .. skeptics don't have to prove anything, they can be skeptical just as they are OK, your insistence that anyone with a differing view must prove why they have such a differing view is nonsensical.

JM - I have been calling for a more respectful approach in another blog on this site and have been overwhelmed by the self-righteousness of people who seem to regard personal insults as fair comment. I share your views that the red cross is not enough. There needs to be a more active editorial policy on this site to lower the abuse and condescension. Yes, I admit I have been robust in my language at times, but I do give in to frustration.

RPG - "your insistence that anyone with a differing view must prove why they have such a differing view is nonsensical" yet it is exactly what you demand of people ("warmists") who disagree with you. If you libel someone, they must prove that they were libelled and you must prove that you didn't libel them - the onus of proof is on both sides. To make an accusation against someone and not back it up with evidence is not a debate, it is simply conjecture.

So which is the other thread Loxton? I'm not quite sure how you can justify complaining in public like this about moderation of the site when you're not prepared to use the tools which you are given to help yourself. Even if you don't think the tool is as good for your purposes as is, it still works. The perfect is the enemy of the good as they say, and it might not be perfect but it is good. So to prevent your martyrdom on the other thread, please respond as soon as possible.

It's not possible to moderate every comment on this thread, unless someone is prepared to pay for that to happen. It would be very resource intensive. And every time we have a conversation about paying for access on the site the response is, "No thanks", a sentiment with which I agree because it is meant as an open site for discussion by all, no matter what their means.

In which case people have to take responsibility for picking-up after themselves, and occasionally after others.

Graham - moderator

Loxton

I am in full agreement with you. This is not "Red Faces"- it's potentially one of the best, democratic current affairs blogsites to be found anywhere. I say "potentially", because I am sure- I know- that many people are deterred from contributing because of the tone set by these serial abusers. And serial abusers they are, as the same people consistently use the elements of abuse in their blogs- personal insult, invective, slurs, innuendo, blame, unjustified attribution, and so on.

I appreciate that OLO is a commercial enterprise that relies on advertising. As Graham Y says, readers are averse to payment. I fear that the coming wave of subscription-based viewing that is coupled to the iPad is going to wreak havoc on the Web. As Chris Anderson points out in his book "Free", there is a world of difference between free and even a small amount.

What to do? I'll certainly bear the "red cross" in mind. However, I worry that it could become a "red cross war" of tit-for-tat, with Graham being run ragged in the middle.

I feel a bit like the coalition soldiers in Afghanistan- we feel that we have a right to be here, but the opposition is entrenched and is prepared to sacrifice reason in the name of freedom of speech.

I guess that's "reason's dilemma"- should we be so reasonable as to allow the enemies of reason to prevail?

In the face of this same dilemma, Galileo said "eppur si muove"- "and yet it turns". My Latin isn't up to it, but I'm sure there's an OLO-er who can inform us of the Latin equivalent of "and yet it gets warmer".

Excuse me?

What has happened here is that I have refuted your false assumption that "science" justifies policy action, proved that government policies will be more wasteful of natural resources than the status quo, and you have been completely unable to maintain the argument in support of policy action on global warming, except by circular reasoning.

And do you do the reasonable thing and admit that you can't answer the questions requred to establish the logical minimum necessary to justify the policies you advocate, and the false claim that the science justifies the policies is false?

No: you act as if the requirements of reason don't apply to you, and then have the gall to talk of 'reason's enemies'.

You can see, can't you, that it is intellectually incoherent to argue that policy action must be justified, because we can't know whether it is justified or not? Or that policy action must be justified in this area, because government is acting in other areas where they are similarly unable to establish any net benefits for their actions? Read what you've written!

You can see, can't you, that it is ethically incoherent to advocate policies which it is reasonable to believe will or may cause people's deaths, without being able to satisfy the minimum of knowledge logically necessary to establish that such policies will produce net benefits?

You can see, can't you, that if such policy action were to cause large numbers of deaths, your assumptions would not enable you to see that it was caused by you?

The warmists are morally and intellectually on a par with the people who used to drown witches. If it turns out that she dies, not to worry, we can save her soul with a Christian burial. And if the government direction of production just happens to result (*again*) in enormous deaths, not to worry, it was all for the morally superior cause nominated by you based on circular reasoning impervious to rational disproof.

Two articles from the paper today are relevant:
1.(NSW Government) Sydney Buses in the last year drove 19.4 million kilometres *empty*. That's the equivalent of 50 trips to the moon.
2. Government is going to supply 50,000 gas heaters to schools for a total cost of $400,000,000. Someone wrote in and said what kind of gas heater costs $7483 to buy and instal. The market rate is closdr to $2000.

But you guys still don't get it, do you? You're still just blithely assuming that government *must* be able to allocate resources to their most productive uses less wastefully than otherwise.

If something is not to be done for a profit, it must be done for a loss, and doing things for a loss is *not* more sustainable, is *not* better for the environment, and uses *more* natural resources not less!

What would it take to make you change your mind?

Peter, well said .. you did catch the phrase above though didn't you?

"the opposition is entrenched and is prepared to sacrifice reason in the name of freedom of speech."

It was amusing when I saw it in the post, and more so now that I see your posts.

Suspension of reason indeed.

Peter Hume

My cursor hovered over the "red cross", but I decided that "The warmists are morally and intellectually on a par with the people who used to drown witches." was marginally redeemed by the quality of the historical allusion.

I do not think that you have "refuted" anything. Assertions do not in themselves constitute refutation. Refutation would require a process of assembly of verified facts connected by logic and reason, not just repetition of claims.

That's how science works.

Graham

The other thread refers to Sophie Trevitt's article where I find the patronising language offensive. Like JM, I am reluctant to start a red cross war, so I will let it slide. Your comment about my matyrdom is also something I will live with.

I am also surprised that no-one has commented on the latest State of the Climate report by the US National Climatic Data Centre which provides further evidence of global warming and its effects.

I'll assume that you're arguing in good faith and as it seems that you genuinely can't understand the issues, I'll try to make it as plain as possible.

The issue is whether government should do something. Do you agree with that?

So when I ask you to prove that the government's action would be justified by producing net benefits, you reply that that cannot be known, we can't have exact knowledge, we can't have 100% knowledge etc.

So then I say that you have not been able to prove whether the government should do something, because you have not been able to prove that it would make the situation better than worse.

So then you say to the effect 'that's what the government's there for' [ie to take such action]. In other words, even though there is no proof, and no way of knowing that the government's action would make the situation better than worse, still the government should take such action, because the government should take such action.

So in the end your entire arguments resolves into a circularity: the government should take action because the government should take action. But that's what's in issue in the first place.

The fact it is a circular argument, means it's illogical, which means I have refuted your argument.

I have also proved that government action on AGW must necessarily waste more natural resources than the status quo, by the economic calculation argument, which you obviously have not understood. But the world turns thus nevertheless. Unlike your argument, the economic calculation argument is not circular but logically proves what was to be demonstrated, without impermissibly assuming the conclusion in the premises as you did.

Your conceit that you are in the position of Galileo has it precisely backward - you are in the position of the Church with its circular belief.

Peter Hume

Thanks for taking the effort in such a civil tone.

Your analysis breaks down at the point where you presume that I endorse any and all actions by governments and that governments should act no matter what.

Collective action is indicated when the likelihood of the action being beneficial is greater than the likely disbenefits of the problem (in this case AGW) plus the likely disbenefits of the action. The important issue here is the notion of "likelihood"- I refer back to my definition of management- the available information is always incomplete. In the case of AGW, we beg to differ- today's NOAA announcements increase the likelihood to a very high degree of certainty.

That leaves the "iatrogenic" issue related to the action- will it cause more disbenefits than benefits? It is certainly possible. I have argued at length for a better understanding of Net Energy Analysis- it is possible that we could consume more carbon-based energy constructing solar, wind,geothermal, nuclear and biofuels than we save. I have argued that the present hybrid vehicles probably are not energy savers.

However, doing nothing but letting the market rip is not an option. As energy efficiencies have improved (about 2%/yr over a long time) we have consistently "reinvested" the savings in more consumption. Add to that the increased number of consumers and you have increasing AGW.

A course of action that reduces the carbon that we use annually is the only way to go- cap and trade. A carbon tax alone might just see the tax money re-used to make net-negative "green" energy sources.

Those are risks- but the free market can only guarantee increased carbon use.

Hmm... interesting:

P.Hume claims the issue is whether the government should do something about climate change. Yes, I think we all agree, that is the issue.

He then asks whether it can be proven if the government's action will produce net benefits. And of course no-one can answer that because it completely depends on what the government actually decides to do, and how they go about it. There are many options available, some more effective than others, some more costly than others.

And so, because we can't predict government policy and therefore cannot give a quantitative answer on the net benefits of unknown policy, we are wrong to advocate action at all, according to Mr Hume.

I also believe we need to reduce crime. There are many ways to do it, but I'm not sure what action the government might take to do it; so I can't be sure what the net benefits will be. So, using the Logic of Peter Hume, I better not advocate it.

Basically, Peter, there are many methods to reduce carbon emissions. I can't think of one that will lead to the deaths of thousands of people, which you seem to be arguing is the case. But most methods will also have the added benefits of reducing the depletion of non-renewables, as well as reduce the emission and therefore health costs of other associated air pollutants (e.g benzene, dioxins, furans, PCBs, heavy metals, SO2 etc etc); the latter of which will SAVE LIVES.

Jedimaster, OLO is not a "commercial enterprise", it is a not-for-profit and is owned by a number of institutions. But it has to pay its bills. The advertising goes to defray expenses, but it doesn't cover the costs. I have never earned a cent myself from OLO.

If you're worried about "running me ragged" I'd rather know of a problem before it gets out of hand than after. It's the ones that run away that cause me the most grief. And so what if the other side in a debate complains? If their complaints have merit then I'll deal with them, and otherwise not. You only have a problem with "tit for tat" if you started the argument and are trying to shift the blame.

I'm not as much concerned about who starts a problem as dealing with the problem.

Loxton I couldn't find anything on Sophie Trevitt's article to warrant moderation. As you aren't so concerned as to nominate anything I think we should agree that the comments don't need moderating in this case.

Jedimaster

I’m afraid at this stage we enter into a debate on the epistemology. (Aaaaaaaaaaaaagghhh! Shrieks off-stage.)

It’s a standard of proof issue: what degree of knowledge do we need in order to be satisfied that government action is warranted? I maintain that we need to be able to logically eliminate the possibility that it will result in a net total negative. (Policy action would need to provide a net benefit, not a mere benefit, because merely benefitting one group at the expense of others, in a total net cost, does not answer.)

You’re saying, correct me if I’m wrong, that in practice we can’t have that degree of knowledge, good management does not require it, and the question is, whether a resulting net benefit is acceptably likely given all that we do and can know.

There are both fundamental ethical and epistemological issues with this approach.

The special and defining characteristic of government, whether democratic or not, is a claim of a legal monopoly of the use of force or threats of force over its subjects. It is this power of coercion which attracts the advocates of policy, otherwise they would advocate non-coercive means to the same goals.

It is one thing to manage one’s own life and property, or that of someone else with his consent, on the basis of unknowable likelihoods. It is another thing entirely to ‘manage’ someone else’s, without their consent, by threatening to use force against them to ruin their life. It is fundamentally unethical to do it where doing so imposes a liability, or death on the one, to confer a benefit or privilege on someone else. Yet this unethical outcome cannot be avoided by the likelihood and collective approach.

‘letting the market rip is not an option’
See there you’re assuming what is in issue again?

Since people will peaceably exchange unless forcibly overridden (aka ‘the market’), the issue is whether to forcibly override them, so it is no argument just to blandly assert that leaving people alone is not an option. It’s circular again.

Graham Y
Perhaps I should have said "businesslike" - you have a mandate, a budget and a board- you are resource constrained. And being an NFP, all the more reason to encouraged self-regulation of your clients.

Peter Hume

It's more an issue of etymology than epistemology (more shreiks offstage)- "it all depends on what you mean by..."

In the case of AGW, seeing that it is a global phenomenon, then action must have global effects and benefit everyone- with the exception, of course, those whom we wittingly wish to disadvantage- eg willful polluters etc.

By "letting the market rip", I meant a market that is unconstrained (ie "left alone") will exhibit market failure in this regard -the problem of "indivisibility". As Garnaut pointed out, it is an "N-Person Prisoner's Dilemma" or a "Free Rider Problem". Each "player" believes that their little bit of "cheating" (ie polluting) is too insignificant to matter. Collectively, it is disastrous- the sub-prime mortgage disaster is another example.

In this case, each consumer thinks that their little bit of extra carbon doesn't matter. Collectively, it does. However we do it, carbon use needs to be constrained.

It was the neo-Cons (remember them?) who gave us the sub-prime disaster. Clearly, without regulation, they'll do it again- and how many people have been made destitute, starved or even died because of that disaster? In the case of carbon, we're all neo-Cons.

We have governments, we always have. They often need to be reminded of etymological and epistemological matters, but for the most part they need to do what they are mandated to do- organise large -scale action for the benefit of all- in the long term.

As to the epistemology, let us assume, very much in your favour, that everything you have argued on that point is conceded (which it’s not). Now. All you've shown is that there are values that are outside economic calculation. You still haven’t shown the likelihood of any given policy being more beneficial than the status quo.

There is still a need to establish, even to your lesser standard of proof, that government is able to achieve a net benefit. But you haven’t done that. You’ve simply *assumed* it.

It's true that economic calculation can only be used for things that are exchangeable against money, and not for values that are an end in themselves, like the niceness of one's grandmother, or the beauty of a waterfall, or the value of the climate.

But that does not make government a presumptively better solution because it has *exactly the same problem* *and* is incapable of economic calculation in the fields where it displaces private property. The free-rider problem is *worse* with government, not better; the ability to pass off the risks and costs of one's action is far greater with a monopoly of coercion, than in a system in which initiating aggression is illegal.

Adding planned economic incoherence to the problem which otherwise remains the same is no improvement.

Peter Hume

Quid pro quo, I will concede that I haven't demonstrated conclusively that government action will provide a net benefit. That is because it is impossible to prove anything that is still in the future- it is an intention. We can only demonstrate that intentions that have been enacted have succeeded or not. That is the nature of things- we apprehend, we plan, we act, we review and then repeat the cycle.

It seems, from what you have said, that on review, governments can't do anything useful, or as well as individuals, or the private sector, can do. That's hard to prove, as we can't test that hypothesis with physics-like empiricism. I, for one, as a public servant instigated, developed and managed a number of programs that many members of the private sector said were good and wouldn't have happened without governmnet involvement. One of those areas was an R&D funding program (market failure of inappropriability and risk) and another was a science museum (inappropriability and indivisibility). Wider examples include defence, health, education and law enforcement. They may be poorly executed, as we all know, but show me a country anywhere and at any time in history relied entirely on the private sector for these services.

Would I like to see government-run restaurants and supermarkets? Certainly not. But in the area of AGW-abatement, governments have to be relied upon to fund R&D and trial programs on a scale commensurate with the problem. That means getting money to do it. Most of the schemes proposed are essentially "hypothecation" schemes where money is raised from a specific area (in this case carbon users) and fed back into that same area to address market failure.

This all assumes that I think that there is a problem (AGW) to be addressed, which I do, and that the private sector will not address it adequately and in a timely way.

JM, I can't speak for Peter, but speaking for myself, the AGW hysterics generally fail to make out a cost benefit reason for acting. The IPCC certainly fails.

The commissioning of the Stern Report by the British Government recognises this failure, but unfortunately the Stern Report was a political document rather than an economic one. He used an absurdly low discount rate and the report is useless.

Bjorn Lomborg has tried to do something with more rigour and his Copenhagen Consensus suggests there are a lot of more important things to concentrate on.

My own personal position is that one doesn't need to look at the risks, just accept that China and India will never have the political will to change their emissions while their populations are below Western standards of living. In which case adaptation rather than abatement is all we can do.

My other position on this issue is that one ought to ask the question "How much CO2 is optimal". My guess is that it is much higher than at present. If mankind has the ability to alter the world's climate then it has to intelligently assess what it ought to do. Just deciding that the answer is to bring it back to where it was 40 years ago without any analysis of that assertion is not a good solution.

We need a mature debate on the issue, not the debate that has been happening, which has been quite juvenile, and mostly on the hysteric's side of the argument. (In this judgement I'm disregarding the nutters who inhabit both sides of the debate and who have little professional credibility, so please don't throw up at me people who say tiny amounts of CO2 can't change the global temperature).

Jedimaster

“That is because it is impossible to prove anything that is still in the future - it is an intention.”

That is not correct. We are able to have certain minimal knowledge which is nevertheless universally valid, on the basis of logic.

For example, we are able to know that Pythagoras’ theorem will continue to apply to all right-angle triangles in the future. And that 7 x7 will still equal 49 on 20 July 2017. No need to wait and do empirical observations, nor statistical tests of the relative frequency of correctness.

We already know these truths with 100% certainty a priori from logic. This can be applied, to a certain limited extent, to human action. For example we also know that adding more and more fertilizer cannot infinitely increase the productivity of a given piece of land. Physical laws impose certain limits on human action and therefore production possibilities, and we are capable of knowing certain logical consequences of these.

Thus we can prove things from a test of threshold logic without recourse to empirical observation *if * the premises are factually true, and the logical deductions are formally valid. That’s why we don’t do statistical testing on the viability of policies based on invisible pink unicorns:- because they don’t meet the threshold test of forming logically sound propositions in the first place.

For these reasons, we already know that without the possibility of economic calculation, an economy *must necessarily* waste far far more resources than an economy in which economic calculation is possible. (This is why the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was able to prove in 1920 that mass starvation would result from socialism, which the socialists had to learn from empirical observation by killing millions of people. This answers Trashcanman’s question about mass starvation from AGW policies.)

The assumption of AGW policy providing net benefits does not meet the minimum threshold of a logically sound proposition in the first place; (which is why you’ve been unable to prove it).

Why not? Because there is factually nothing about a legal monopoly of coercion, and coercion-based central planning of production, that would enable us to conclude that its chief executive or his delegates could ever have the knowledge or capacity (or disinterestedness) to allocate the zillions of resources possibilities to valued ends, as economically as could a system based on the private ownership of property. If you want me to prove it, please let me know. The proof is logical and mathematical, not empirical.

On the contrary, government will contain all the original problems *and* have
- no way of economising resources in accordance with its own rationale
- no way of avoiding massive waste in practice – think pink batts:- the government’s idea of saving the climate btw
- no way of avoiding tragedy of the commons, legalised fraud, massive corruption, institutionalised freeriding and systemic injustices
- the power of killing on a massive scale.

"I will concede that I haven't demonstrated conclusively that government action will provide a net benefit."

Very good of you, but with respect, you haven’t even begun to demonstrate it.

Similarly Trashcanman, obviously if we ignore the costs of something, anything will seem beneficial. You’re applying a double standard and that’s the only reason your conclusion may seem justified. A private business cannot operate at a loss because it will send the business broke. But for the schemes you advocate, you don’t count the economic and environmental costs necessary to put the people in the same position they would have been in if they had not been taxed to pay for the schemes. So you’re not comparing apples with apples.

I have now shown that
- the entire argument for policy action on global warming is based on false claims about science, and consists of circularly asserting a mere assumption that is not verifiable or falsifiable; and that
- AGW policy action will *necessarily* be more wasteful and therefore counter-productive *even when judged from its advocates' own standpoint *.

QED

Graham, Peter

Your thoughtful contributions are a credit to OLO.

So our issue is not the existence of AGW, but what to do about it- I think that collectively you have established a "false trichotomy" ie only 3 options- do nothing, let the government do it or let the private sector do it.

"Do nothing", leads to either "just live with it", as it will never get too bad (because nature will self-regulate), or seek to "mitigate" it, either by private or government action.

"Government action" gives Peter the horrors, as he rightly says that we can't control zillions of interactions, redolent of determinism arguments in my undergraduate days. This is a straw argument, because no one is suggesting a totalitarian approach with massive computers coupled to ubiquitous CCTV. We can do a lot better than that.

"Leave it to private sector" is as logically absurd as "all Government", as most economies are, and will remain, about one-third government funded and those funds (from our taxes), already shift preferences- witness the recent mining tax debate and the claims as to how that would shift production preferences.

I posit a fourth option, which is broadly in line with the present public proposals- government shifts the preferences by taxation and legislation, and lets the "economy" (private and public) sort out the myriad of details at the transaction level.

But how to do it? And how much? And when? I accept, in principle, both Peter's "iatrogenic" fears, and Graham's comment that the financial modelling to date is inadequate. My thinking still remains along the lines that I set out 2 years ago in my OLO paper on Net Energy Analysis OLO www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5695 and the pdf of my larger paper referred to. Essentially, I take the approach (not "believe") that energy consumption and economic consumption are very closely correlated, so we don't have to create a separate "energy economy"- we can use conventional economics.
We don't have to have to drop our standard of living (SOL). (..Cont'd)

As I've said before, productivity has tracked at about 2%/yr for more than a century. If we simply maintained SOL and population from, say, 1910, we would have had 2% annual deflation and carbon use would have about quartered. But we didn't- the population climbed faster than productivity and we "reinvested" the "efficiency dividend into more purchases, therefore increasing our SOL. Credit has also increased the effective money supply and essentially purchased even more carbon to burn. Although Western populations are peaking, India and China have joined the significant carbon burning populations.

Leaving India and China aside, we could reduce carbon use by not "reinvesting" all of the 2% efficiency gains- limited to, say, 1%. This could be done by governments running surpluses (go for it Tony!) and keeping a lid on credit. That would halve the carbon in 70 years- a bit slow fo some, but much better than nothing.

India and China? In the short term, we can't do much, but China,is taking this problem seriously. I was at a World Solar Congress in Beijing a couple of years ago and it was apparent even then that the "Celestial Empire" does not want to be shrouded in pollution. China is already the world's largest producer of windpower, PV and solar water heaters and growing exponentially. As I have said before, these energy sources are not "competitive" with carbon yet, but the trend lines (see, for example http://www.1366tech.com/v2/) have renewables at grid parity within a decade or so. Although they can't totally supplant carbon yet, they will contribute to the efficiency dividend after 2020. India is more problematic as they don't seem to have a culture that intrinsically worries about pollution. Maybe they will be swept along by the international momentum.

So there- "just" pull the fiscal levers and the participants in the economy will do the rest. Possible? Very! Probable? As Reagan (possibly) said "people don't change when they se the light- only when they feal the heat." And how much AGW "heat" will be enough?

Thank you for your kind remarks.

Your method *again* relies entirely on assuming what you need to demonstrate.

The argument keeps looking something like this:
Warmists: We need government to do something about global warming.
Skeptics: Prove it.
Warmists: The science proves the globe is warming!
Skeptics: That doesn’t prove policy action is indicated.
Warmists: But it does.
Skeptics: Why?
Warmists: Because only a bad person – a ‘denialist’ - would deny it.
Skeptics: That’s personal argument and assumes you’ve already proved what’s in issue. How will government know all it needs to know to make the situation better than worse?
Warmists: We can’t know all the details of government action.
Skeptics: Then how do you know there’d be a net benefit?
Warmists: We don’t know it exactly.
Skeptics: Well how do you know it at all?
Warmists: It has to be.
Skeptics: Why?
Warmists: Because. The government must do something.
Skeptics: That’s circular argument. How do you know there’d be a net benefit?
Warmists: Because the government must do something.
Skeptics: That’s circular again.
Warmists: You are an enemy of reason.
Skeptics: What makes you think government would be able to produce a net benefit?
Warmists: Because. There is a tragedy of the commons situation. No-one owns the atmosphere. There are externalities and market failures.
Skeptics: All the same problems would equally inhere in government action too, plus other problems now absent. How is extending the commons going to reduce the tragedy of the commons?
Warmists: Because only government can fix the problem.
Skeptics: How do you know government’s intervention will make things better than worse?
Warmists: Because that’s what governments are for.
Skeptics: That’s what’s in issue.
Warmists: Well what about government interventions in other areas?
Skeptics: What about them? Can you prove a net benefit from those interventions?
Warmists: No.
Skeptics: So?
Warmists: There would have to be a net benefit.
Skeptics. Why?
Warmists: Because government does them.
Skeptic: Is that the best you can do?
Warmists: The government has to do what’s necessary because the private sector won’t do it.

Skeptics: Well I’m not surprised. If they do it at a loss, they’ll go broke. You’re somehow assuming that doing things at a loss will not waste more resources.
Warmists. Perhaps so, but I’m assuming there would be a net benefit.
Skeptics. Well obviously. But you can’t assume as a premise what you’re trying to prove as a conclusion.
Warmists: Okay fair enough. How about this? Government exists, therefore government should do something.

On so on and on and on. It’s like a joke. Did you guys go to Fallacy University or something? And this is someone who writes cost-benefit analyses for Cabinet! This method should have been beneath you, but given you used it, I should only have had to point it out *once*.

But this is invincible ignorance. What we are dealing with here displays all the characteristics of an irrational belief system, and none of the characteristics of a rational one.

There is no need for me to enter on any of the easy refutations of your last post until you have got to square one, which you haven’t done yet.

Let’s be honest. Admit that you can’t advance an argument without assuming government provides net benefits, or if do you again, it means you concede the general issue, okay?

You've got my vote Peter. A most interesting discussion.

Peter

I am not ready to concede anything, yet- particularly if your language continues to slip into insults and inuendoes. Let's keep the party clean and focus on the topic- which I see as AGW- and what, if anything, to do about it.

Your repeated claim is that governments shouldn't get involved at all, because they never provide net benefits over a completely laissez-faire economy. You also claim that this can be proved by the critique of pure reason, where the theoretical can bridge to the empirical. Theory can act as a metaphor for empiricism, but not replace it.

As an empiricist, I ask you to show me even one completely laissez-faire economy, and if you can, show me that it has performed better than a (reasonably) comparable economy with a government that exacts some taxes and provides some services. I await your evidence with great interest.

If you can't, we are left with the (to me) sensible issue as to whether government intervention can improve the situation. This can't be "proved", because we have to wait until (say) 2050 to find out- and even then, we won't have had the privilege of comparing a statistically significant number of worlds in a double blind test.

However, we can either take the approach of "likelihood based on past performance". Here you might have some traction, but I have pointed to some positive examples, too.

That is why I have proposed an approach that has Government only making macro-economic settings (1% surplus, no expansion of credit) and leaving the community (the major players in the economy) to do what they have done for a long time- try to improve their lot by efficiency gains.

Peter, Keynes said "we can't eat gold". I say "we can't cook with Aristotelian syllogisms".

..and Cheryl, while Peter's sophistry may be more "interesting" than my appeals to empiricism, does that make it true, or at least more useful?

"Your repeated claim is that governments shouldn't get involved at all..."

I have not made that claim, because I haven't had to. We are all still waiting for the AGW policy advocates to establish a rational justification for policy in the first place. We have not yet got to the stage of establishing the initial claim, and therefore we are not yet at the stage of requiring a rejoinder.

Facts do not interpret themselves. That requires theory. For example in the AGW debate, the raw data are simply reams of temperature records - pages and pages of numbers - for places and dates. No-one can, and no-one claims to be able to, interpret them in their raw form, because of the great complexity involved. The whole point of rendering them in statistical analyses, is to be able to identify significant generalities by omitting detail judged to be relatively insignificant. But that act of interpretation is not given by the data themselves, and requires reference to theory. If the theory is not sound, the entire conclusion will be unsound.

To be scientific, the underlying theory must at the very least be logically cogent. *After* the theory has satisfied that minimal test, we may then proceed to empirical observation and statistical analysis of data which *are* historically contingent.

But the only theories you have advanced, that 'government must do something because government must do something', or that 'government exists therefore government must do something', being circular, do not satisfy that minimal logical test.

Therefore you should be taken to have conceded the general issue and ordered to pay me for a year's supply of beer and dancing girls.

Peter
At his stage of my metaphorical evening, I only have flat beer and the only dancing girls left are flat-footed. But if you are claiming that my argument is circular, I am aguing that yours is flat wrong.

Of course, as Kuhn and Quine asserted "all data is theory laden", but some theories are "better" than others in that they can more accurately predict future events. This is where the AGWs have it over the anti-AGWs.

Be that as it may, you claim that I support government action on the basis of circular justification. I don't think so. It's been by a process of elimination of the contenders.

As I've said before, AGW is a "free-rider" problem, exhibited at three levels. At the personal level, most people aren't really motivated to reduce carbon consumption as there are benefits to not and they don't believe that their "defection" will make a significant difference. Similarly at a corporate level and an individual country level. That only leaves collective global action, or sufficiently widespread global action that the "defectors" are a minority that can be isolated or compensated (if they are small and weak).

As to the "iatrogenic" possibility, again as a "probabilist-empiricist" I look at the likelihood of success vs failure. Governments have failed frequently, but they have also succeeded often as well. The baic question is whether my theory of "carbon reduction by deflation" is robust.

Will we ever know? Probably not. The spectre of deflation is haunting Europe- and the USA, because inflation has been used for a long time to reduce real debt at all levels.

However, as government subsidies have stimulated the green energy supply sufficiently to get them close to the "grid parity" threshold, there is a chance that the "energy dividend re-investment" problem could slowly go away, particularly if carbon supplies remain so politically and environmentally problematic.

The present round of subsidy reductions probably won't affect that outcome.

I can hear the strains of a Kris Kristofferson song:
"The shutters are closed and the ladies are leaving."

LOL

Smacks of magic pudding to me.

Peter

As that old empiricist Bunyip Bluegum would say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

May the Force of Reason be with you- always.

“What, indeed, could science be without reason?”
Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics.

Without falling back to a theory of cause and effect based on pure reason, we would be unable to say whether global warming was *because of* or *despite* a prior rise in CO2 emissions.

“The rejection of science, of scientific reasoning, and consequently of rationalism is in no way a requirement of life, as some would have us believe. It is rather a postulate fabricated by eccentrics and snobs, full of resentment against life… However those who rally round the stand of antirationalism in the theory of social phenomena, especially in economics … do not in the least want to do away with science. Indeed, they want to do something altogether different. They want, on the one hand, to smuggle into particular scientific chains of reasoning arguments and statements that are unable to withstand the test of a rational critique, and, on the other hand, to dispose, without relevant criticism, of propositions to which they are at a loss to raise any tenable objections….”

“Only the literati are enthusiastic about poverty, i.e., the poverty of others. The rest of mankind, however, prefer prosperity to misery.”

Written in 1933 (foreboding totalitarianism), Mises could not have described the contemporary situation any clearer, could he?

There certainly is a freerider problem, but it’s not the one you dream of solving by government control of everyone and everything involving carbon, i.e. everyone and everything.

Every fund of tax in consolidated revenue is a tragedy of the commons waiting to happen: http://economics.org.au/2010/07/the-tragedy-of-the-tax-pool-commons/ , with everyone interested in plundering everyone else, not getting value for money.

This has given rise to the first call of a democracy, handouts to the majority, which hand in hand with the know-it-all state, gave rise to compulsory indoctrination in the religion of national socialism for all http://economics.org.au/2010/07/government-schools-teach-fascism-perfectly/ of which your own commitment to illogic could not be a better example.

The third tier is using tax funding to corrupt the scientific community into asserting a ‘scientific’ basis for baseless worship of the state-god.