The panzer metaphor is quite amusing.

If my memory serves me correctly ancient civilisations rose and fell and in some cases this was because of climate change. The Sahara was not alway a desert. The continent of Australia was much wetter in our ancient past.

Climate change which happened long before our level of use of fossil fuels and the subsequent increase in the release of CO2.

So the climate of this planet changed in the past, without human intervention to help it.

So what is the 'truth' I do not know, but the debate shows especially those who wish to suppress decenting opinions that humans haven't progressed very far up the evolutionary scale and still use cave man tactics to win.

Those of you who follow the global warming debate on OLO will recognise me as an avowed skeptic. I must now reveal that on further review of the available information, which isn't really much, I have had a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus style conversion. My present view is that, while there are natural temperature variations throughout the earth's distant (and for runner's benefit, I do mean more than 6000 years) and recent history, anthropogenic effects are probably being overlain on this and what we are presently seeing is the sum of the natural and the unnatural. Here is what tipped the balance for me: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

I remain concerned that far too many people in this debate are rabid nutters or people who clearly have some conflict of interest - and here I refer to both sides. And it is certainly true that there is much flak flying, much of it having little effect because it is so poorly aimed. However I will henceforth derive enjoyment from taking the p*ss out of the nay-sayers - at least for a while. I shall watch Durkin's opus tonight with keen interest! There are arguments on both sides, and the sooner we get to a rational debate rather than the present ill-informed idealogically based mud slinging the better.

The whole climate debate is a smokescreen (darn poor pun) and excuse for the authority junkies to interfere, through justifying a carbon trading tax, with what was previously the free exchanges and trade between private individuals.

The “Carbon Trading path” is the proclaimed pill which Gore’s campaign of misinformation is intended to get us to swallow and which will supposedly make everything “fair”.

But has anyone asked the important questions – how is the process regulated and who audits the trades? bearing in mind the UN itself has proven, in the Iraq oil for food program, that it is corrupt and too incompetent to be left to run a chook raffle and organisations like the EU cannot manage the olive oil lake and butter mountain their economic mismanagement produces without the mafia and other illegal entities becoming involved.

I have said before the easiest way for any scientist to suckle off the public teat is to come up with a good scare campaign and then recruit third rate politicians to espouse the cause.

Well this is socialism by stealth (the scientists and politically motivated socialists being the beneficiaries of funds and power, respectively).

Having failed to inflict the tyranny of socialism in the last century (the collapse of USSR etc.) we have here a substitute process designed to “engineer” and “level” different nation-societies around the world into some meaningless, homogeneous mediocrity to be ultimately overseen by the UN, where we all suffer to privations of oppression and denial of individuality, which is always the down side of mixing any bureaucrats with power.

I will watch this documentary with interest, more interest than watching a failed politician muff his way through a hysterical fear campaign.

This is just the normal peer review that is going on isn't it? All it says is neither side has the evidence to prove the hypothesis one way or the other. You would expect that though because prediction of demographics, technology and other variables well into the future is fraught with difficulty.

There is a similar but lesser problem proving that smoking is harmful and tobacco companies still claim that epidemiological and other scientific 'proof' is unreliable because humans live such varied lifestyles. Tobacco companies can find scientists to agree with them.

To take the other side for a moment, does anyone really believe that we should escalate energy use (great for profits) and be reckless with the environment (no controls are also great for profits).

As regards the existence or otherwise of global warming I think that few people would support the obvious wastage of energy by developed countries like the US and most people would say that fossil fuel reserves are finite. Likewise most people would like to pass on as viable and pristine and environment to future generations as is possible.

So why not be practical while the boffins argue among themselves about definitions and proof and accept there is consensus that:

- there needs to be some thrift in the usage of the world's resource, including energy, reserves;

- the use of renewable energy sources should be encourged; and

- pollution should be reduced.

Simple changes make a world of difference. Does every american have to drive over two tonnes of metal with a seven litre engine? In Oz do we really need to build big office blocks that are so energy inefficient?

Fact is I am happy that Councils are encouraging better designed houses that will decrease energy bills and conserve water. It is good to see some big companies leading the way to conserve energy and protect the environment and yes I do consider that when buying products and investing in shares.

An interesting article in this morning's Age (quote):

Inside the broadcaster there are also reports of tension between Tony Jones, who usually hosts Lateline, and the head of factual entertainment, Denise Eriksen, over his reportedly tough questioning of Durkin when he travelled to England last week.

According to the independent news website Crikey, Eriksen also travelled to London and, without Jones' knowledge, apologised to Durkin for the "rough treatment".

"Edit suites have been resounding all week to screams of outrage from Eriksen demanding that tough responses be cut out. Jones has more than once needed to make clear he will 'walk' rather than agree to a sanitised show," an "ABC insider" reportedly told Crikey.

"Eriksen has even gone as far as demanding a written rundown from Jones as to how he intends to conduct the live to air discussion after the Swindle film airs. He has refused to comply. The stand-off may lead to a sudden change of presenter on Thursday night, so stay tuned."

*

The article is here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/great-debate-or-swindle/2007/07/11/1183833599426.html

Things are hotting up in more ways than one. See you in the soup at the website tonight:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

:)

Ahh, "The Australian". From supporting Saddam Hussein in the eighties to global warming denial in the noughties... How low can they stoop?

It is interesting to read what scientists and scientific organisations think of the misrepresentation of their data in this show..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reactions_from_scientists

I look forward with interest to viewing the controversial doco that (it seems) argues against a humankind directed global warming scenario. That the earth is warmimg up seems to be beyond doubt, although similar arguments were in vogue some years ago in support of global cooling. The real issue is that we are, in one way or another, fouling our own nest. The earth is four or five billion years old - the idea that we, in two hundred years or so, can have such a direct effect on some of its fundamental parameters seems a bit hard to accept. Even so, the cleanup is fully warranted apart from issues of climate change. The need for clean air, clean water, ample supplies of non contaminated food etc, is in itself sufficient reason for the current efforts to find alternative non-contaminating power sources and industrial processes. Forget climate change - just clean up our act.

For a man who believes that a scientific hypothesis "...is validated not by shouting but by experimental and observational testing and logical analysis" Bob Carter does an awful lot of shouting in this article.

Carter's use of the extended military metaphor is neither scientific nor sotto voce. Nor is his suggestion that people who claim consensus should be referrred to the nearest psychologist for re-education.

And invoking the revered names of Charles Darwin, Wilhelm Roentgen, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Robin Warren-Barry Marshall and their like, as suitable company for Martin Durkin is more a rhetorical gimmick than cold science.

I will watch the documentary tonight with an open mind despite Carter's attempt to properly prepare my neural receptors.

I don't think that anybody on either side of the (so-called) debate denies that the climate is subject to change.

I thought that the real issue was the RATE of that change and the degree of humanity's impact on that rate.

The problem is that if the believers win - and are wrong, it may slow down the world economy for a while, which may cause some people some problems.
However, if the deniers win - and are wrong, then those problems may be far worse for many more people.

At the moment there are "extremist sympathisers" on one side and "holocaust deniers" on the other side who are making all the noise and at the moment, it's the deniers who really crave the public attention more than the sympathisers.

What about those of us left in the middle?

Maybe we should throw caution to the wind and go all-out trashing the planet and leave it to a future generation to sort out.

“In March, 2007, UK television Channel 4 screened another film about climate change which had a different message. Made by Martin Durkin, and called The Great Global Warming Swindle, this documentary explored the science of alarmist global warming a lot more carefully and accurately.”
Upon the pedestal of that grossly misleading statement, flies the tattered banner of Bob Carter’s scientific credentials.
As with General George Custer,
R.I.P.

I dont see the logic in trying to refute the possibility of climate change due to man made activity because it has happened before when we were not around - So what! I splutter - the forces of nature may still gazzump the impact we are having - or not.

It is still naive to deny the fact that when 6 billions pigs leave a little faeces and what ever else around things will change.

As for the science and AL Gore - lets face it An Inconvenient Truth was about as scientifically based as an ad for hair conditioner - it adopted the typically American Shock and Awe approach to sales - for all that and the overt hypocrisy of a green warrior jetting around the globe telling us to make less CO2 - the balance of authority lies with the Climate Change advocates - it is prudent to be wary when warned - If 8 out of ten games hunters tell me the signs suggest there is Lion in the area - I heed them , not the 2 who say tish tosh its all in thier heads.

The debate will be polemic and passionate reason will rule the day -

I've heard the argument that "consensus is wrong, all major breakthroughs have come from a gifted few" before in the climate change debate.

And if the consensus is only the consensus of the ill-informed, then maybe the argument makes sense.

So how can a layperson like me know which opinion is most likely to be true?

The only way I can think of is by accepting the opinion of the majority of those who have studied the evidence AND are qualified to evaluate it.

THAT's a consensus that means something!

Cheers!

Interesting piece on Crikey.com today by Ben Oquist about the ABC's screening of The Great Global Warming Swindle tonight.

While the ABC has been plugging the screening as an attempt to tell the ‘other side’ of the global warming debate, and while apologists for the film have been banging the free speech drum, Oquist points to other interests that might be at play.

Eight people who appear in Swindle are connected to 26 separate organisations that receive funding from Exxon, the world’s biggest oil company. The film-maker portrays them as "leading climate scientists" but they turn out to be employees of a giant vested interest.

Oquist also draws attention to an expose in 2003 of advisor to US Republicans, Frank Luntz, who wrote:
“The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate...”

While base motives don’t, in themselves, render the contents of the film invalid, they must give cause for the viewer to be more than normally alert to globalised commercial spin.

It is also understood that the maker of the film has cut it by about a third since its initial screening and some of the cuts were cleansing of embarrasing scientific errors identified by critics and interviews with scientists who now claim to have been mischievously misrepresented.

Perhaps Brigadier Bob Carter who so extolled the film’s militant truths on OLO this morning might like to give another comment before tonight’s screening? Or is he down a bunker?

It seems our contributors who won’t believe that modern man could be buggering up the planet, could be the same people who believe that Islam is a decadent race which would be better put out of its misery.

Those who are of this mind, also could be those who support the existence of tiny Israel, which with the most modern American armaments, if given the go-ahead could quickly wipe-out any ME nation which would oppose her.

It is also so interesting that what we now call the modern corporate culture – is really only a re-fashioning of the 18/19th century free-market which even its originator Adam Smith gave warning that though Laissez-faire was a benefit for already strong nations to expand through competition and trade – which he called the Wealth of Nations - the fact that competition was also based on human greed, meant that it would be the philosophers helped by compassionate churchgoers who would be needed to keep ambitious governments on the right path.

The point is, that Adam Smith was a philosopher as well as an economist, as Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher as well as a declared Christian Saint - one who dared to balance Christian faith with Socratic reasoning which steered us towards the democratic governments we have in the West today - democracy itself being a Greek word.

The major failings of the corporate culture, therefore, is that those that support it, and no doubt benefitting from it, do not realize that corporatism in itself is far from democratic as proven by the way Big Biz is out to reduce its numbers very seemingly by getting rid of all competition.

So we have our unconsciously naive smart-arse thinkers, really not thinkers at all, but just followers of this godammed corporate culture they admire so much, and being opposite to our avande garde so-called left-wing fruit–cakes are also those who would never believe that modern man and his rampant runaway technology might ever be ruining this planet.

Remember that cyclicism has had our world destroyed before through loss of bushland.

So what has changed?

Good on you Bob Carter.

The emerging scientific history of planet Earth has shown that some amazingly strong forces of nature are at work, on and off the planet, to produce ice ages and global warming.

So is the changing composition of our atmosphere critically important? Just look at Venus with a rich CO2 atmosphere and an average temperature of 423 degrees C. Moving towards Venus by unlocking trillions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere each year seems dangerous, given the evidence of global warming.

The precautionary principle would indicate it is prudent to stop adding CO2 etc to our atmosphere until the risk of damage is eliminated.

Does the Swindle documentary offer us a chance to continue our fossil-man lifestyles unabated with a much better, benign explaination for global warming? What of solar activity? How are we to decide if the claims are credible or incredible?

Do the facts support the alternative hypothesis? Yes, solar sun-spot activity has increased we're told. It's revealing to hear what eminent solar scientists on ABC radio said yesterday about this doco's presentation of the facts relating to the impact that sunspot activity is having on global warming. (Source ABC news radio)

It seems there has been an oversight by the Swindle producer of recent solar data including sun 'brightness' data that shows our sun has actually been dimming (slightly) in recent years, thus contradicting the alternative hypothesis.

Who's swindling who - and why? It's time the public are told the whole truth. The consequences of getting it wrong are catestrophic.

And while this may all seem like just a lot of academic hot air to some, the truth is that nature's response has it's own time. By the alarming accounts of the majority of climate scientists, the time to avoid the climate tipping point may already have passed.

It is good to read some commonsense. Climate change fanatics if they get their way could cause immense economic damage to this country. For example are we to stop exporting coal?

I think the concentration on the global warming debate has unfortunately shifted focus from something we perhaps should really be concerned about.

At some point in time the demand for oil will outstrip supply and I surmise that once this point is reached the price of oil will continue on a upward spiral.

It the flow on effect of this price spiral which concerns me.

Will airplane travel become the domain of the wealthy. Macquire bank will off load Sydney airport to unsuspecting punters, who will see the price of their shares spiral downwards.

Will travel by car become a reserve for sundays and on weekdays every one uses public transport, simply because of the price of filling up the tank.

Plastics used in every day life become more expensive to use and to buy.

The transport of goods will more than likely be shifted back to rail.

Certainly is going to be an interesting future.

For the people who don't seem to acknowledge the world is trying to address the GW problem.

Have you wondered why all countries are adopting policies and strategies to address climate change? (yes, even the downtrodden of Africa).

Have you wondered why businesses are adopting policies and strategies to address climate change? (yes, even fossil fuel companies)

They either:

1. believe there is a problem and are planning to deal with it or

2. not sure about the problem but risk analysis says hedge your bets

This is a very simplistic view, but it can help people understand why both sides of the political and business divide are doing things to address global warming

Mr Carter you're at it again - refusing to allude to industrial pollution and its impacts on the planet and human health.

You recommend for your opponents that "such persons should be referred to the nearest psychologist and gently dissuaded from inflicting their nonsene."

Such arrogance Mr Carter when it is you who urgently requires counselling for your attempts at duping the reader in urging them to continue plundering the planet.

Sir, since you are suggesting that anthropogenic emissions are harmless, I request that I use you for a guinea pig.

That would require you to authorise and attend a monitored session where you would be exposed to industrial chemical emissions.

Chemicals in the trial could be, though not restricted to:

Organochlorines (including PCB's), polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, mercury, lead, volatile organic compounds (about 200 different compounds), hexachlorobenzene, arsenic, CO, chromium VI, formaldehyde, toluene, xylenes and hexane. The majority of these chemicals, once burnt, convert to CO2. All dump on our eco systems.

In addition, they all emit from industrial stacks and other man-made sources.

Should you survive the exposure to these chemicals and without any ill-effects, after a relevant period, then I would concede that you must be correct. After all, what's healthy for humans, is healthy for the planet. Or is that the other way around?

Mind you, as with the planet, there is a lag time for symptons to appear. Therefore, we may request double dosing you to achieve results in a shorter time frame.

Please respond to this urgent request at your earliest convenience.

PS: Other environmental vandals are encouraged to participate.

That's a great motto for die hard pot stirrers and other flak-o-philes.

The issue is not of climate change but a matter of cause.CO2 may or may not be the murder.The evidence so far is circumstancial.It could be increased sun spot activity,pollution of our oceans,deforestation or a combination of many human activities.

I'm a sceptic since the evidence no where near being conclusive.The problem is we now have a new religion whose existence depends upon circumstancial beliefs that are far from being self evident or scientifically factual.

The socialist left like the theory since it destroys capitalism and they just lasiviate in "We told you so" scenarios.

There are many scientists who will also get a lot of funds by propergating half truths.To those who consider their profession to be far more noble and important than us common lower life consumers,the end may well justify the means.

I suggest Bob practice what he preaches. If this rant is an example of his scientific approach then spare us. I also think that if Bob were honest he would tell us all that he was a professor of economic geology, and in his academic career received large amounts of funding from the mining industry.
Godo

Yeah, and the flak that intelligent designer twits get indicates they're right. And the flak that the Jews gave the nazis indicated the nazis were onto something. Carter is a complete moron.

I don't have a Ph'd only basic high school science.

So if memory serves me correctly Dickie, arsenic, lead, mercury and possibly chromium VI are basic elements. Not compounds.

You can not produce CO2 by burning CO (Carbon Monoxide), Carbon Monoxide is produced by combustion.

You can burn lead and mercury all you want and still not produce CO2 from them. However the fumes are rather toxic.

Mercury was once used in the manufacturing of hats, and the milliners absorbed the mercury through the skin and breathing the fumes. Hence the phrase as mad as a hatter.

PCB's like lots of man made compounds were once thought to be safe.

However once the compounds that you mention are burnt they not only produce CO2 but H2O, C, Hydrogen compounds and other basic elements which make up their construction. Sometimes these compounds reform to constuct toxic gases. Hence the acid rain.

AS I suspected all along the pseudo science of evolution coming into play where 'experts' make up facts about what happened millions of years ago. They say it with such authority and with no evidence. The only problem is that many scientist can not even agree on the age of the earth. The theory changes depending upon what they are trying to convince people of. The whole global warming issue is a complete joke. Bob Carter is one of the few who would want some decent proof before believing the GW High Priests and their own self deception. If any their was any doubt about the swindle you only had to listen to the panel last night.

It's appalling that the fear-mongering left don't even want to hear the other side of the argument they are so smug, yet insecure...

It took much wrangling to get them to even show it, and only then because it was heavily edited (where are the civil libetarians?).

What was the point of the government putting some normal people on the board if they have no power?

And then, to really ensure they get their way, they have an hour long 'Attack!' session right after the show, what lunacy!

Has this ever before happened on TV, let alone a government funded one?

It's utter madness.

Perhaps this is why the far left are in bed with murderous Muslims, as both have the same regard to opposing viewpoints.

Shame on the ABC, but shame on taxpayers for putting up with such drivel.

Look at Mediawatch for crying out loud! It is the media wing of the far left, it is totally beyond the pale. Monica Attard is fixated on the right.

Who knows whether environmental degradation comes about because of our acts - but to silence someone for saying something the leftist herd don't like is wrong.

Fear-mongering, talk about fear-politics! The world is going to be flooded within five years!

Yet such leftists aren't pressuring China, India and Brazil, the worst polluters apart from the US - to even be a part of this save the planet movement!

Cowards!

JamesH

It appears your comprehension of the written word is not proficient.

No-where in my post did I refer to heavy metals as compounds.
Nor did I say that heavy metals convert to CO2.

Nor did I say that CO converts to CO2.

Nor did I refer to chemicals that are responsible for acid rain.
Those chemicals happen to be SO2 and NOx.

What I did say was "The MAJORITY of these chemicals, once burnt, convert to CO2."

Volatile organic compounds (VOC's) all contain carbon. They form atmospheric photochemical reactions, though carbon monoxide is not a VOC.

You are correct when you state: "PCB's like lots of man-made compounds were once thought to be safe." The scientists who force-fed humans and all other life-forms, these heinous chemicals, have a lot to answer for.

Organochlorines are biocumulative, transboundary in nature, proven or probable carcinogens, mutagens and/or teratogens and are virtually indestructible.

That is all the more reason why Mr Carter should cease his deception and adopt the Precautionary Principle since man-made organochlorines and hydrocarbon emissions have now seriously polluted all earth's eco systems and have contaminated our entire food chain.

Martin Durkin did not come out of last nights showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle very well. He was not able to answer Alan Jone's questions in a convincing way. Mr. Durkin's problem being that he did not include more recent scientific research, much of which went against his thesis of sun spot activity having an impact on Climate Change. The program smacked more on a conspiracy theory put together by a journalist, rather than having any scientific rigor.
The Panel discussion after the film, comprehensively debunked Mr.Carter and his skeptic colleagues.

The important issue is that any hyphothesis put forward must have the ability to be replicated in other scientific studies.

This 'debate' is fundamentally driven by vested interests. Largely of a political nature.

The scientists can debate the factual differences in their dispassionately scientific way.

The politcal interests infuse the science with emotion and passion. Very usefel devices for conning the ballot box punters.

Once science becomes politicised it descends into the realm of vested interests and there's not much said by either side that can be taken with much more than a grain of salt.

The opposite ends of climate change debate are populated by socialists versus capitalsits. One wants to go on as is, the other seeks to use the 'science' to rein in and control the other. Taxing the air we breath is useful for government too. l used to joke that the govt will eventually tax us for water and air. We pay for water, soon air wont be free. How long before they contrive a means by which to tax sunlight.

The poltical 'debate' is scientifically and factually redundant. Its a complicated area of science. Silver tongued political snakes wont understand and they wont help the average punter who believes that interests rate will rise under a labour govt to understand either.

There was a line in the movie 'Thankyou for Smoking' that said that you dont have to actually prove your own position all you have to do is raise enough doubt about the opposing claimants position. The doubt will be enough to get people to scratch their heads in confusion and err on the side of caution. When in doubt... dont. And that suffices as a rhetorical victory.

Which is where this thing seems to be heading.

Which suits me, because l think its all a crock and l dont need scare campaigns and moralising appeals to social responsibility to do what l've been doing well before anyone was talking about this stuff. Who needs a reason to reduce, re-use and recycle? Since when do l need a reason not crap in my own bed?

Ploliticians sure think that people are stoopud. Maybe we should stop giving them cause to think it.

A quick reply to FrankGol.

I have occasionally "played the man instead of the ball" myself, attempting to discredit the messenger rather than the argument and can understand having a knee-jerk and reactionary response when reading/hearing that a number of anti-AGW "experts" receive/have received part of their funding from Oil Companies. Problem is that this is a two-edged sword.

You may not be aware that Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC has long directly worked for TATA, the massive Indian industrial conglomerate and spent 3 years (1999-2002) as a Director of the Indian Oil Corporation. Thus he was not only funded but in direct control of "Big Oil". Should this now disqualify him from being a vocal PRO AGW voice?

Probably not. Why not? Cheers.

Benjamin, science is about constantly assessing and testing information, if the information doesn't hold up then it is discarded. Mr. Durkin virtually indicated that scientists are unprofessional, lack ethics and are involved in conspiracy; he used rather flimsy research. A huge insult to those who have made science their life's work. It should be no surprise that his views were attacked. His ethics were attacked with examples as too why; but in the main the information he presented was assessed, nothing personal about it. His information was pulled apart in a rational manner.

punter57

It’s an important point you raise and I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment about "playing the man instead of the ball". So, yes, I would apply the same rule to the head of the IPCC.

You may have noticed that I said yesterday: ‘While base motives don’t, in themselves, render the contents of the film invalid, they must give cause for the viewer to be more than normally alert to globalised commercial spin.’

To be clear: I wouldn’t disqualify scientists’ views on the grounds – alone - that they are on the payroll of companies that have a commercial interest in the scientific findings. But two conditions should apply:

(a) I would expect scientists to declare any potential conflict of interest;
(b) I would expect them to sign off to the effect that they have not allowed their pecuniary interest to compromise their science, and submit their works to peer review wherever possible.

Finally, I would expect all readers/viewers/audience of any science outcome to be especially vigilant when assessing the findings of a scientist who has a pecuniary interest, notwithstanding assurances.

runner, given that you call evolution a pseudoscience, you clearly have no concept of what science is, and any further discussion with you is a waste of electrons. Benjamin, you use the expression "fear-mongering left" as if it means something. Grow up.

For everyone else who doesn't recognise that Carter is a self-serving contrarian twit: give up. You will only make fools of yourselves.

Ian Dunlop is a former senior international oil, gas and coal industry executive and chaired the Aust. Coal Association in 1987-88 and the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000.

He has called for an urgent government change of policy and recommends a reduction of Australian emissions to 50% by 2025.

Dunlop's proposed policy on climate change was written in consultation with an impressive body of experts from around the world.

In contrast to Mr Dunlop's recommendations, Mr Carter wrote a paper titled "When Science Fails, just use the Precautionary Principle," endorsed by the Institute of Public Affairs (Dec.'06.)

Some of his statements in that paper on the Precautionary Principle advise:

A "disturbing lack of intellectual rigor."

"This is an acknowledgement that the audiences or at least the questioner has run out of scientific argument and refuge is sought in sociology."

"No amount of Precautionary Principle is going to stop natural climate change."

"Driven by addiction to alarmism and a false belief that the causes of climate change are understood, environmental lobby groups worldwide urge the adoption of the Precautionary Principle to solve the global warming problem."

"Put another way, all that is needed to fix the Precautionary Principle is a little more rigor. Rigor mortis, that is."

The footnote on Mr Carter's paper advises he is:

"An experienced geologist and an environmental scientist."

Given the scientific evidence to date, the Institute of Public Affairs, strictly for the purpose of salvaging its last vestige of credibility, would be well advised to adopt the Precautionary Principle and immediately gag Mr Carter ("environmental scientist") from spruiking more of his inane sophistry.

Dicke and JamesH, CO is flammable and converts to CO2. It has a heating value (higher and lower are equal) of 10.9 MJ/kg.

It was commonly used as fuel in the past as a component of coal gas and wood gas (along with hydrogen and contaminants like sulfur and nitrogen oxides). The main reason coal gas and wood gas aren't used directly as fuel today is that CO is toxic to humans (and methane, aka "natural gas", is cheaper today).

The Fischer-Tropf process for synthesising liquid fuels from coal or biomass produces alkane chains and water from CO gas and hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst.

I thought Bob Carters piece was really funny. Then I realised he wasn't being facetious.

I'm still not sure if Bob thinks the ABC aired "An Inconvenietn Truth" and that it received a warm reception.

Do I bother replying with logic to a piece deviod of any?
Lets just all "Do a Durkin" instead.

Somewhere here I have Bob's 6th grade report. He failed science. Therefore Bob cannot be a scientest. I rest my case. But wait, what's that you say? He went on to university and gained a degree. Well I think that's a moot point.

Sound familiar?

Except for something like this, it's pretty obvious common sense. Screw your environment and you're screwed. Just because we are talking about gases here and therefore can't see them, doesn't mean that we are not altering considerably the functioning of our ecosystem. When you consider human activity, how much of it there truly is, and how many of us there are, it doesn't need a degree in rocket science to appreciate our effect on the environment is not going to be one that enhances our atmosphere, but most definitely the opposite is most likely.

I am persuaded about climate change and I doubt any one could dissuade me, no matter how clever the conjuring tricks of the media. Our environment is degrading everywhere and more than demonstrably so.

The author of this piece insults our intelligence and intends to. It is why he uses insulting terms.

Hi GYM-FISH,

"The real issue is that we are, in one way or another, fouling our own nest. The earth is four or five billion years old - the idea that we, in two hundred years or so, can have such a direct effect on some of its fundamental parameters seems a bit hard to accept."

Surely not that hard to accept. It can take centuries for a mighty tree to grow, but these days, only five minutes to cut it (many of them) down.

would be well advised to adopt the Precautionary Principle and immediately gag Mr Carter ("environmental scientist") from spruiking more of his inane sophistry.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 13 July 2007 7:28:54 PM

Did not Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc gag dissidents?

I think there was even a time that scientists were persecuted as heretics by the church, because the church did not approve of their inquiring minds.

Dicke and JamesH, CO is flammable and converts to CO2. It has a heating value (higher and lower are equal) of 10.9 MJ/kg.

Posted by xoddam, Friday, 13 July 2007 9:52:35 PM

Thanks for that, xoddam.

I had a huge smile on my face when all these people turned off the electric lights to reduce CO2 emissions and then they lit candles.

Yep that makes huge sense, reduce CO2 from one source and create more CO2 from another. I would suggest a hugely practical way to reduce CO2 emissions would be for people to put a plastic bag over their heads, (some really dumb people might actually do it) to capture the CO2 they breathe out.

“Did not Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc gag dissidents?” – Yep.

“I think there was even a time that scientists were persecuted as heretics by the church, because the church did not approve of their inquiring minds.” – Yep.

The Bush Administration tried to ‘gag’ James Hanson (not you?) from NASA – Yep.

They also ‘gagged’ government scientists from even mentioning the word “Global Warming” in their correspondence – Yep.

They even promoted the word “Climate Change” in favour of Global Warming – Yep.

The US even tried to ‘gag’ the IPCC – Yep.

Of course, I am being facetious – Yep, it’s Sunday.

Xoddam

I appreciate your clarification, a point I was endeavouring to advise prior to JamesH distorting my post.

No doubt, you would also concede that all hydrocarbons, once burnt, convert to CO2.

Would you also concede that with the implementation of exhaust systems (pollution control mechanisms), the volume of atmospheric CO2 would drastically reduce?

One may obtain any industry licence from the Dept. of Environment to learn that most of the industrial polluters are not required to implement pollution prevention control.

This is the result of the sycophantic "regulators" aligned to pollutant industries, where only socially responsible companies voluntarily install pollution prevention mechanisms. The remainder are simply obsessed with profits and like Mr Carter, prefer to vandalise the environment for the fiscal benefits of a few.

As a consequence, you will learn that despite Messrs Turnbull and Carter's denials and false assurances, industrial pollution has increased. You may access these results from www.npi.gov.au.

Therefore, whilst the environmentally friendly "joe blows" endeavour to reduce their carbon footprint, the industrial barons are enlarging theirs.

May I advise you also not to risk driving a smoky vehicle. The regulators will put you off the road immediately. It is mandatory for you to install an effective exhaust system!

Not even close Bob, and no cigar. Tony Jones does half his job for once and RightThink cries foul. All Karoly was doing was his job, prob happy cos its easier to pin down the artful deceivers on primetime than in peer reviewed journals, though he's done that too. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6586/abs/382039a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5648/1200http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5648/1200

If the ABC were doing all of its job it would have put Clive Hamilton on panel to talk about industry funding of sceptics in Australia, as laid out in new book Scorchers.

But wasn't the audience a doozy! is Tony mysteriously drawn to ..characters? a better process is to have audience submit written questions, could publish all to allay inevitable 'bias!' whines from the Right. I'll bet Bob wont quickly agree to another such public demolition.