I guess we all suffer from relevance deprivation syndrome at some point. The sad thing about Don Aitken is that his desire to present himself as an iconoclast on climate has led him to jettison all scientific (if not moral) principle.

First, he puts John Zillman’s name forward as if Zillman is disputing the findings of the IPCC. However, in 2001 (after Don’s quote was written) Zillman wrote about the Third IPCC report that it ‘provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of what is currently known, and not known, about the science of climate change’ and that ‘As an assessment process, the Working Group I component of the TAR appeared to work well with more transparent mechanisms employed for resolving or recognizing genuine scientific differences than was the case with the Second Assessment Report. Its essential conclusions appear to have been widely accepted in the scientific community’ (J. Zillman (2001) The IPCC Third Assessment Report on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8:3, 169-185)

He then cites two UK politicians as experts whose views should somehow take precedence over the conclusions of the scientific community. One, Peter Lilley, has a degree vaguely described as being in natural sciences and economics. He is currently under investigation for not declaring an interest as a director of a petroleum company, for which he was paid tens of thousands of pounds, as well as receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of shares. The second of these UK politicians is Graham Stringer, a graduate in chemistry in 1971 who worked as an industrial chemist. Stringer is famous (infamous?) for claiming that dyslexia is a fiction which doesn’t exist.

So, Don is guilty here of improperly suggesting that Zillman holds views he doesn’t hold, and of garnering support from two politicians whose reputations are a joke.

What’s going on Don?

My general view is that if people comment on what I have written it is part of a good conversation to take note of what they say and respond, if there is a point to respond to. But I don't respond to people who simply dismiss what I say because I am not a natural scientist, or because others have said the opposite and I must be wrong. Nor am I much interested in guesses about my psychological state.

If critics want to dispute what I have written, then show me in particular where I am wrong. I have been responsible for the evaluation of big research projects for thirty years, and overseas as well as here. I can aways be wrong, but if you think so, then show me.

I quoted John Zillman because he made a point about the tension between the scientific and the political that few from within the system ever make. It is true that he is a supporter of the IPCC, and indeed he was a very senior person in it, too. But he is at least aware of some of the problems. I didn't suggest anything more than that.

Don Aitkin,

Of course you're free to express your opinion on climate change as I'm free, as a business school graduate, to express my opinion on quantum mechanics.
To each his own trade, and neither yours nor mine is climatology, I'm assuming you don't have the necessary mathematical or physics qualifications to undertake an informed discussion on the subject. I certainly don't, so I'll rely on the opinions of experts.

What OLO conspicuously lacks are articles by climatologists rather than people with arts or law degrees.

BTW I remember reading your very interesting essays on politics years ago, I can't remember the name of the publication.

Hi Don, with thousands of scientists in 20 or 30 different disciplines all coming to similar conclusions, it is no wonder that their “weight” is crushing those without knowledge who proclaim different directions.

If you track those two "scientists" in Wikipedia, you will find neither has been a practicing research scientist - neither is able to critique climate research science from a basis of knowledge.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity: AR5 assessed it to be between 2C and 4C. There is uncertainty about the exact value. However those concerned for future of our world would say a value of 2C is terrible, and 4C horrendously so.

All climate science disciplines rely of peer review via published papers. The results presented in any one paper only gain credibility after review by most scientists working in that discipline. It is rigorous peer review.

“Still singing the same hymn”? This means that the science of global warming, first understood and reported in the late 1800’s, is still robust.

Tensions are great - indicating real debate between climate scientists about the differences inherent in different approaches to research. The final reports are authored by hundreds of scientists. Not politicians or government overlords. Presented, debated and summarised by scientists representing many, many scientific disciplines.

Enormous efforts are expended to understand all natural causes of climate change. Only through that activity is the anthropogenic contribution able to be identified.

If your gnutless gnat lives in the ocean, and requires calcium carbonate to make a shell, then beware the acidification of the oceans. Because if the gnutless gnat disappears, all of the food chain above may disappear as well and our oceans become populated with jelly fish and little else.

Don, there is not much political credibility in the IPCC, compared to the credibility of the science it encapsulates.

The state of Australia in the world of Climate Science is very much the making of Greg Hunt. While much of the rest of the world, and in particular China, USA, Germany, are boosting GDP through renewables research and development, deployment and management, Australia is walking backwards.

Grim, you are the joke. You have not adverted to the science, or the Climategate emails, which disclose the dishonesty of the scientists who support the IPCC in its baseless assertions. Billions of dollars have been expended, attempting to produce science to show any effect on climate by human emissions which is measurable.
The resulting science shows that the effect of humans on climate is trivial and not of the significance necessary to be scientifically noticed. The IPCC has nothing to justify its existence.
Thanks, Don, for an excellent commentary on this disgraceful situation

Leo,
You seem to be speaking from ignorance - but that is OK. Most of those who do speek strongly against climate change science do not understand the science.

However, you might understand simple measurements performed by very expensive NASA satellites. The heat energy coming into our earth from the sun is more than the heat energy leaving overnight. Therefore, like the pot of water on a stove, the world warms. This is fact - about 1 watt of additional energy per square metre over the whole earth.

See
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Questions: why is the earth warming? Will it cause harm?
Why would you answer no to both of these questions? Can you explain why such warmth will not heat our air, heat our oceans, increase ferocity of storms, increase number and intenstity of fires, melt ice and snow, and much, much more