Hello All

The most significant thing about this thread is how it is clear that some people, that is, Martin Callinan and Grace Pettigrew, obviously believe it is not possible to have a principled position on anthropocentric global warming (and Kyoto) other than their own. Grace has implied in her posts Jennifer is simply a paid stooge of the evil coal companies “Yes Jennifer. And wouldn't that make the coal industry happy.”, and Martin is even more explicit “:Hacks masquerade as sceptics all the time, most particularly columnists and academics that stray from their actual area of expertise, lobbyists just doing their job and crazy people”. This is an insulting slur on Jennifer’s integrity, and shows a lack of good will and tolerance of diverse viewpoints. She has handled the criticisms with good grace, and her critics would do well to attack her arguments, rather than her character and motives, neither of which are relevant to the science of the situation.

With Kind Regards
Geoffrey

Geoffrey while one cannot dismiss input because it comes from someone with connection to a lobby group or outside a field of expertise, but questions of a conflict of interest and qualifications are relevant.

As my earlier post raised, when can one feel justified when going against the scientific establishment on often complex issues that one hasn’t studied or has access to all the relevant information? Especially when a full understanding or crucial information on a subject is needed for informed judgments on that subject.

But on the other hand the establishment has got it wrong and I think it would be an error to think those in the present are not capable of making the same mistakes. I think the same happens in ethics but that’s another subject.

Should we give equal consideration to the claims of Creation Science advocates or those company paid scientists who said there was no link between smoking or cancer?

Grace do you know of anyone who has looked at cultural/social/institutional bias in science in particular to Victorian sexuality and eugenics in the 1920’s?

I'm just catching up on this thread. We would be very interested in hosting a debate on this site, which could be also run in collaboration with someone like Michael Duffy (to take part of a suggestion by Neohuman).

We've run debates before under the banner "Havachat", and you can see one of them at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=372. Much better than a radio debate which will be truncated, hurried and partial. The Havachat format allows for a more organised discussion of issues. We also get agreement from the two participants beforehand as to the topics that they will cover so that we don't just get bogged down on one point.

There are a number of serious issues that can be debated in this subject area and which are not being debated. It's a perfect area for On Line Opinion. We can also run qualitative analysis as well as the normal forum threads, as well as chat rooms to complement things. I have the email addresses of those on this thread who've expressed interest in the idea, but if you want to email me before I email you, please feel free.

For others lurking who may have an interest, please email me at editor@onlineopinion.com.au. You may also be interested to know that OLO attracts a monthly readership of somewhere around 60,000 individuals - not a bad audience to be talking to. Particularly as many of them are journalists who will likely pick up some of the ideas and run with them.

Jennifer,

It’s not celebrity scientist that've convinced me climate change is real and worrying but the hundreds of climatologist in Australia and thousands overseas. The vast majority of whom conform to the normal profile of a scientist; cautious professionals perusing scientific advancement.

It's not that they are authorities so they must be right (I am arguing against authority in Australia / US don’t forget) but that ‘right makes might’.

Is it not ironic that the conservatives invoke conspiracy theories when it comes to climate change? Sure, lines of academic enquiry sometimes lead to dead ends but to say this is deliberate and in order that the 'house of cards' 'they' built doesn’t come ‘tumbling down’ is a bit rich.

I don’t know why Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC. I don’t know why Brad and Jennifer split up either. Honestly, how can I?

Your quote: “How is it that everyone is saying there has been an increase in the incidence of extreme weather events when the data just does not support this position?” I don’t know about this.

I know you can’t relate today’s weather to climate change but I do know that in 20 years we will be able to say something about this decade and climate change. And I expect, and am prepared to act on the expectation, that there will be a causative link.

Shall have a look at your Murray stuff.

And just to be clear, Geoffrey’s posit (a previous comment) that I slurred Jennifer is entirely his own interpretation.

As Jennifer’s reaction testifies, and I’d like to think my words affirm, my view of hacks is common and one which I am sure Jennifer shares.

He should also note I did address her argument and, further, that I am keen to learn of any aspect of any other position on climate change as long as it is based on reality. As opposed to someone’s ‘principled’ reckoning, which while rich in dogma happens to be devoid of substance.

Martin,

A few pointers for you ...

In 1997 a survey of US State climatologists found that the majority disagreed with the "consensus" beliefs about Global Warming. Full report is at http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climatologists1097.html . (Yes, I know the survey was 7 years ago but it is the most recent that I can find with a quick search. I just wanted to make the point that not all climatologists follow the crowd.)

Chris Landsea's resignation letter, which includes his reasons for resigning, can be found via the link near the bottom of the list down the left side of http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm .

You may like to explore some of the other links on the above page. I know that in the "summary document" I talk about the claim that extreme events are becoming more frequent. I'm pretty sure there's at least one reference listed in the document. Be warned, the full document is just over 20 pages - it may be easier to download and save it rather than print directly from the web.

cheers

Hi Everyone,

I have agreed to a Havachat type debate as per http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=372. Though I am not sure who GrahamY or Neohuman are suggesting I debate or the topic? Any suggestions?

On a slightly lighter note, has anyone read Michael Crichton's new book 'State of Fear'? I understand it is a best seller in the US.

Cheers