Mr. Callinan

1) I have confidence in the IPCC after reading Lords

So when Castles refers to the opinion of 3-4 Nobel Laureates in economics he is still wrong and you, and the IPCC industry is right. Utter Rubbish.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=318#more-318

2) Whose coin one takes is whose tune one sings.

Yes, and that would also apply to those on the pay roll of political entities.

3) My case is born from the .....

Consensus isn’t science and science isn’t consensus.

For the IPCC/Kyoto to have left India and China and others out of the game says something about the underlying politics of this whole cause.
At least now there is a chance that the issue can be better managed, by other than an idiotic Eurocentric command and control style of system that is already falling apart at the seams.

The details of exactly how the new scheme is going to work I assume is still being worked out just like the IPCC/Kyoto idiocy is still trying to work it out after how long on job, 15 years?

Perseus,

.....by some fossil fuel companies which perceive the obliged reduction in emissions as a threat their interests.

Yes and why wouldn’t they when it was going to cost a bomb and yield no tangible result worth bothering about, even when not measured against the grossly inflated projections of the IPCC.

Snowman,

Can you also post a reference to Professor Hans Von Storch’s work

In case Snowman doesn’t have it here is one version
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-342376,00.html

Q. When and how should we reduce our emissions?

When we have a system that has been properly thought through, and doesn’t deliberately and unfairly damage our international competitiveness, and spreads the burden within OZ and globally more equitably. In addition we need a system that is based upon a more valid problem definition, including a more sustainable argument as to all the sources of the GW. Note the plural. Can you deliver that?

Big Mal,

A discussion of von Storch's work can be found in a PDF document at http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

My source also comments "Professor Dennis Bray's letter was submitted to Science in response to the Oreskes essay [in 'Science' in Dec 2004 claiming complete consesnsus on global warming] . It was rejected. In fact, the editors of Science refused to publish *any* of the numerous letters critical of the Oreskes study. No wonder many readers of Science believe that there is a universal consensus among climate researchers..."

Also see an article by von Storch in Der Spiegel of 24 Jan 2005 at http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html which stated in part "Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."

Finally a word from Michael Crichton on the kind of consensus that Martin seems so keen on....

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.."

Big Mal,

It is not a childlike case of Castles is wrong and I am right. I’m saying that I have heard his point, and the points of many others, and from all I’ve read and heard, I have confidence in IPCC. If I’d only read Castles then sure, I’d have a different view.

The difference between being on the pay roll of a political entity (My party represents the political wish of about half of Australia, UK and US) and one company, is the difference between interest in the future of millions and interest in the financial future of a few.

How would Australia meeting its Kyoto obligations deliberately and unfairly damage our international competitiveness? You have got to be joking!

Snowman,

Where can I find Von Storch’s paper? The links you cite are oped and discussion pieces written by Von Storch and his his co-author, Bray. The actual paper does not appear to be either published in any journal or available on the internet.

The discussion refers to the paper written 2 years ago - Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”.

In 2003 George W. Bush (President of the United States of America) questioned the seriousness of climate change and whether human activity is contributing to it. By August 2005 he says it is serious and that human activity is contributing to it. He is doing this because he is satisfied by the consensus in August 2005.

Michael Crichton is a best selling author of fiction. And just like the importance of considered analysis of all the information, there’s more to scientific development than paperback truisms about consensus.

What has brought us the internet, modern surgery and our understanding of climate change is provable scientific cannons. Sometimes, we’re wrong but over the years we have put together a body of knowledge built upon universally agreed understandings.

Turns out the earth isn’t flat, that air is made up of gases and things are electromagnetically related. We have consensus on these things; useful consensus.

Martin,

I did wonder if you are simply repeating the opinions of others or whether you actually investigate at least some of these matters for yourself and when you see a possible correlation you interpret it the way that you want to regardless of the scientific validity for your claim (ie. whether the situation is entirely explained by Physics).

I also wondered if you were repeating the unsubstantiated claims of others or using judgements based on the circles you move in when you denigrated all scientists by claiming that scientists' conclusions could be bought by whoever provides funding. (I've been told that Exxon fund research at Stanford University to the tune of a couple of $million per year so maybe they fund Stephen Schneider, the person who claimed in the 1970's that an Ice age was imminent but now claims we'll all fry...)

My current impression is that you are not repeating the claims of others but are showing your own wilful misinterpretations.

Why do I say this? I inserted the comma that you said was missing from your earlier posting and I now find you saying "My political ilk include ... Blair, ..Martin, ..Koizumi, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ..Schroder, ..Putin, ..Berlusconi, ..Chirac, and yes, even the Right Honourable GEORGE W. BUSH."

I can't think anyone else who would be of the opinion that Bush and the President are (currently) two separate people.

As for the references, I am not sure that von Storch's original paper has been published because "Science" is in the habit of refusing articles that contradict a certain viewpoint. The rest of the references you can search for. You do know how to use a search engine, don't you?

Mr Callinan.
Within the constraints of the short hand of blogs I stick to my original comment, namely that, how anyone can read the Lords Report and the Castles/Henderson material and NOT conclude that there is something seriously awry with this whole IPCC industry does beggar belief. Other than that I was making no judgement,but you are. You are claiming that you, and the IPCC, are right.

So your hot little Phd gives you the right to draw firm conclusions on any matter even when they may be miles away from your area of expertise, and at odds with the supporting opinion /advice of a gaggle of Nobel Prize winners whose topic it most certainly is.

The arrogance of it all is astounding.