Hello again Poirot.

Yes, I was not surprised that Barry York didn’t (want to) see the relevance of his ‘on-line opinions’ to the following link at the Conversation:

http://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355

After all, the article by Professors Pancost and Lewandowsky very aptly describe the unfortunate paradox of Barry York’s reasoning/behaviour, and provides yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Ergo; Barry York distorts public perceptions of the true scientific state of affairs.

For example:

“Shadow Minister's point is valid. The Occupational Safety and Health Admin in the US, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists place the permissible exposure limit for worker safety at 5000 ppm.”

Your response: “Do they also have a permissible exposure limit for an ecosystem...or a civilisation?” is spot on.

Barry York is either deliberately under-playing the significance of the enhanced Green House Effect, or is just plain ignorant.

My guess: he is not ignorant.

To illustrate further:

“There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from our economic activities are altering the Earth’s climate. This consensus is expressed in more than 95% of the scientific literature and it is shared by a similar fraction: 97-98% of publishing experts in the area.”

“In the present context, it is relevant that research has found that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the few dissenting researchers “are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

“Guess who, then, would be expected to appear particularly confident when they are invited to expound their views …? Yes, it’s the contrarian blogger who is paired with a climate expert in “debating” climate science …”

Guess who blogs fervently as c21stleft?
Check out the blog roll!

Senator Inhofe is a joke in scientific circles, much like our own Environment Minister Hunt.

DavidK,

I asked you to explain why you saw your link as relevant because it was not clear to me.

You cannot point me to a source that establishes that 98% of scientists share an alarmist view. The evidence in the surveys of scientific opinion show that the great majority share the IPCC conclusion that the planet has warmed and that human activity is the main driver of the 0.8 degree warming since 1880.

As for Poirot's point, I am not a scientist and do not know enough to know what effect 2000 ppm would have on the eco-system or civilisation. It struck me that if humans can be comfortable in a work environment at 5000 ppm, then it is possible we could adapt - change things through geo-engineering for example - at 2000 ppm.

My personal view is that there is good reason to move on from fossil fuels regardless of climate alarmism. Nuclear will be the best intermediate option but whatever source we adopt will have to maintain our living standards while enabling the poor world to alleviate poverty - the greatest moral issue of our time - and allow for further progress.

Greater funding is required for R&D into alternatives that fit the above bill.

You guys seem upset that the public has a say in the decisions about what is to be done. Well, we do. It's called democracy. I rather think the arrogant tone of your responses indicate frustration that you're no longer having it all your own way.

byork,

It's not just about what a human being can stand in an isolated scenario - it's about an extremely complex system which up until now , has favoured human civilisation.

"For all the alarmism, greater alarmism and even greater alarmism, our two billion brothers and sisters who are hungry and do not have access to clean water will not do what some in the 'first world' would tell them and opt for less efficient and more costly forms of energy. In the industrialising and modernising countries of Africa, for instance, people will be lifted from extreme poverty – as the rest of us were...."

Check out India's Green Revolution for how not to "develop sustainably". You'll find massive groundwater depletion, soil degradation on a massive scale, farmer debt and suicides through corporations controlling fertilisers, pesticides and now controlling the seed market. Where once farmers saved and shared seed, they are now forced to buy F1 hybrids from the likes of Monsanto and Cargils...and people are still gravitating from rural areas to shanty towns on the outskirts of cities because they have lost their autonomy and can no longer subsist in traditional ways.

Or this:
http://time.com/3558344/china-pollution/

"China’s Pollution Problem Killed 670,000 in 2012, Study Says

"You guys seem upset that the public has a say in the decisions about what is to be done. Well, we do. It's called democracy. I rather think the arrogant tone of your responses indicate frustration that you're no longer having it all your own way."

In the West, we now have a massive propaganda exercise funded by fossil fuel backers to give scientific kudos to people who have no scientific training...tell me when that has happened before?

Human scientific advancement until now, has relied on peer review for it's success.

Now we have oodles of print and articles written decrying conclusions reached by climate scientists which are given serious consideration. Most are written by people who first insert the (now infamous) disclaimer "I'm not a scientist".

byork,

Just to clarify...I'm not suggesting that you are backed by fossil fuel interests to write skeptical articles on this subject.

However, much of the prevailing dialogue in the media and on blogs is funded that way - and rests on the premise that climate scientists and their conclusions are all part of a massive scam.

There is so much contrarian material out there, resting on nothing but fresh air and abuse, that it has now become mainstream to query the "credibility" and "integrity" of scientists on this issue.

Some even refer collectively to scientists who possess training and expertise, and who are merely doing their jobs, as "alarmists".... how's that for an arrogant tone?

‘morning Barry,

A well balanced article, thanks.

The 98% mantra to support the alarmism is sounding increasingly desperate. I guess there’s not much else to cling to?

The aircraft analogy is plain silly, who would fly an aircraft that was built on “consensus” rather than on proven physics?

The accusations often leveled at commentators that they are not “real scientists” beggars belief. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman is a former railway engineer and soft porn writer and the entire SPM panel does not have a single scientist on it! Err, hello?

If the alarmism and 98% agreement were valid, this would be reflected in political decisions. We would have a replacement for Kyoto, there would be a vibrant global renewable industrial market, but the RENIXX index collapsed in March 2013. There would be emissions trading markets, but Al Gore’s Chicago Exchange went bust in December 2012 and the EU market is down from 34.9 Euros in 2008 to just 3 Euro’s now.

The “science” has been unable to retain any of the global infrastructure that was built to service it in the first place.

The EU is the last bastion of global alarmism and is paying a devastating economic price. U.S. natural gas is at $1.95 to Europe's $11.42? EU industry is moving to the USA in order to try to compete, even VW’s latest plant is moving the Washington State.

Swiss banking giant UBS says the “carbon emissions trading scheme has cost EU consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact".”

Germany alone is building 25 new coal fired plants, 9 of which will burn lignite and seems likely to postpone nuclear plant closures, Japans new government looks set to spool up their most modern reactors and the USA seems likely to approve crude exports, build the XL tar sands pipeline and cut their $12m funding to the IPCC.

The global glut of fossil fuels is again powering economic prosperity, unless you live in the EU? Oops!

Can’t wait for the Paris gabfest next year.

spindoc, there seem to be some serious gaps in your understanding:

"The aircraft analogy is plain silly, who would fly an aircraft that was built on “consensus” rather than on proven physics? "
Nobody suggested a consensus was a substitute for physics. NOBODY would design an aircraft without basing it on physics! But a consensus, based on observations as well as physics, is still needed to determine whether it is safe to fly passengers.

"The accusations often leveled at commentators that they are not “real scientists” beggars belief. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman is a former railway engineer and soft porn writer"
Are you claiming he isn't suitably qualified? If so, what qualifications do you think should be required for the job.

BTW I hadn't heard him described as a "soft porn writer" before, so I checked on Wikipedia and found he'd written one romance novel. Do you really think that's of any significance?
"and the entire SPM panel does not have a single scientist on it! Err, hello?"
What is your source for that claim?

"If the alarmism and 98% agreement were valid, this would be reflected in political decisions."
That comment rests on two false assumptions: firstly that the politicians are aware of the facts, and secondly that they care more about it than staying in power.

"The 'science' has been unable to retain any of the global infrastructure that was built to service it in the first place."
Because the politicians have stuffed up the economy so much that people are currently more concerned with that, and because other countries are reluctant to take any action while Australia does nothing.