Here's a tiny clue that climate change might be serious; every Australian city except Hobart and Darwin is looking at desalination or waste water recycling. Vast swathes of once irrigated farmland are lying idle. Food prices are soaring. We are burning more coal to make up for shrinking hydro. Australian and world grain production is declining despite population growth. Sure Sydney had a cool summer but Adelaide was like an oven. Maybe next year will be Sydney's turn.

So far we have coped but it's getting harder. However I see no reason to expect any reduction in these trends. It seems an unfair burden on today's children to grow up in a world of extremes. The IPCC has indeed made wrong forecasts, for example recent Antarctic ice melt is worse than they predicted. We may only have to wait a decade to see a 30 cm sea level rise, not the end of the century. Those who urged taking no action will not be remembered kindly.

Don Aitkin is right about the need for due diligence on global warming, though a Royal Commission would probably be ignored in much the same way as were the recent British High Court decision which found Al Gore's film to be a political not a scientific statement and enquiries by the House of Lords and the US Senate. What's difficult is finding a common basis of fact. The Antarctic ice cap is an example. The Wilkins ice sheet, part of which broke off recently, represents less than 0.40 percent of the total Antarctic cap. It melts to varying degrees during every Antarctic summer. Overall, however, Antarctic ice cover is increasing and approaching record levels in some areas. When the annual Wilkins melt is used as an example of looming disaster, dispassionate discourse and scientific analysis are the losers.

Don,

Your suggestion that Pascals Wager is essentially similar to the Precautionary Principle has two flaws. The belief, or otherwise, of the existence of God , based upon the given premises, affects a handful of people. Mainly family, friends or colleagues. So the impact of making the wrong decision is very localised.

Secondly, the Precautionary Principle starts from a place where something is 'known' or 'observed', unlike the hypothesis presented in Pascals Wager. It says that initially, in the absence of stronger data, we (the collective we) should plan for Y if the data consistently indicates that X is causing Y.

The correlation between CO2 and climate change has been getting progressively stronger over the last twenty years. So in fact we've moved well past the point where reasonable people would apply the Precautionary Principle.

The science is overwhelmingly pointing to the need to act.

Simon Roz

Then how do you explain the lack of temperature increase over the last 8 years when CO2 has to continued to increase significantly?

Don't tell me. Its um, Earth Hour right?

There is merit in much of this article and I too struggle with the urgency of action to reduce CO2 emissions. I look to the actions of our political leaders and I assume, perhaps wrongly, that they can avail themselves of the very best advice. Unfortunately all that I see is that after getting that advice all they produce are symbolism and empty gestures.

While the ALP's policy on nuclear power has long been inconsistent, e.g. you can only operate three uranium mines but there is no cap on how much they can produce, the party has been consistently in favour of burning coal, and exporting coal for others to burn which produces massive CO2 emissions.

If the ALP, who have consistently been against the use of nuclear power turned around and said, 'this is so serious that we will close coal power stations and commission nuclear power stations', then I would see that CO2 emissions are a huge problem. The Government action is a bit like Kevin Rudd's stance on China, good on him for his rhetoric, but that is all that it is. We continue to export to China, and until he leads economic action against China by stopping exports of coal and gas, his actions will continue to speak louder than his Mandarin.

If we did that former Prime Minister John Howard and his Liberals would still be in power. Don't you know anything? Climate change, political change, change ... it's all the same. And then the idiot went and made it much easier by introducing work choices!

President George W. Bush. You're next!

Don

Global warming is a problem, whether you believe in human induced climate change or not.

The UN Security Council are concerned enough to put it on their agenda. If they see it as a problem, Australia should as well.

You don’t have to believe in AGW (many don’t) – However, many governments, business and religious leaders do. Have they all been ‘hoodwinked’, are they all that irrational or stupid as you imply?

The science is complex. It is very disingenuous to challenge the science on a blog-site and hope to have reasoned and rational debate in a public domain where opinions run rampant with misunderstandings and deliberate distortions – from both sides.

The Gores and Carters of the world sensationalise and promote fear in the minds of the untrained, and both alarmists and those from the ‘deny and delay’ camp are at war. This can’t be good.

IMHO, I think the problem is more about ideology (rather than the science) and this is where the debate should be focussed, a Royal Commission won’t help.

In any event, scientists can’t ‘simply’ explain the science in an open debate, it can be very confusing to the layperson, as you would understand when expert witnesses are called into court.

If you want another enquiry, why not call on ‘the education system’ to make science more easily understood? Just a thought, have we the time?

Senior Victorian

You say ‘Due diligence’, from whose or what perspective?

Royal Commission? The problem we have is global.
No matter what a RC finds, we are still part of the global community. Is not the UNFCCC (a ‘commission’) hard enough without locals muddying the water?

On the contrary, the British court still found Gore’s assertions based on fact. Gore is a politician turned actor after all.

You put energy into a system: - it warms; water evaporates, moisture falls out as rain/sleet/snow. It’s a warmer wetter world Sen Vic.

The BAS were premature in their pronouncements, but collapsing ice shelves are a symptom of warming waters surrounding them. The Wilkins collapse still has to be investigated thoroughly.

As far as I understand Don Aitkin is qualified in poltical science not physical science. Could we have a critique of the global warming hypothesis by a climate scientist and not by economists, politicians business people or anybody else with irrelevant qualifications, I'll pay attention then. I'll agree, however, that our leaders seem to be ignorant of the fact that we live in a marginal desert and are alarmingly dependent on imported oil.

Paul.L repeats the nonsense about the climate not having warmed in the last 10 years. Paul (and Don and all the others who parrot this rubbish from the likes of Bob Carter) please look at the graphs on NASA's website http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and tell me warming has stopped! 2007 was about the same as 1998 despite the fact that 2007 was at a solar minimum and a La Nina year and 1998 was a solar max and an El Nino year. So IF you must look at short term trends, then you have to conclude the Earth is warming. The simple fact of the matter is that weather is very variable. That the record maximum was 10 years ago does NOT mean that the average is not increasing, any more than that because today was hotter than yesterday, tomorrow will be hotter again.

The only reasonable way to look for climate (not weather) trends is to look at longer term averages – and they are inexorably increasing. See RealClimate 11 Jan 2008 for example: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523
1998 was an exceptionally hot year for that time. Now, however, that sort of temperature is quite 'normal' (2007 was about the same as 1998 but was not nearly as 'exceptional').

Why is it that the sort of recycled, but thoroughly discredited arguments that Don Aitken is putting forward continue to surface in some of the media? Is it an attempt to get balance? In that case you would need about 100 articles confirming global warming for every sceptic! A relatively kind explanation would be that the media likes to stir up a controversy. The cynic, however, might suggest that there are more powerful influences at work here.

Q&A's comments illustrate exactly what I mean by the difficulty in finding a common basis of fact. The British Government in the High Court case conceded 9 errors of fact in the Gore film, of which one was the claim that increased atmospheric CO2 levels precede periods of global warming. The British Government conceded that for the past 600,000 years increased atmospheric C02 followed rather than preceded periods of global warming.

Another factual issue relates to whether the world is actually warmer and wetter. It depends on your point of reference. The world has been warmer in the past than it is now and wetter in the past than it is now - and sometimes both at once. Interestingly, NASA lists the warmest years of the 20th century as being in the 1930s and 1940s.

Slowly the voices of moderation will be listened to.Man is a greater threat to himself via over population rather than this alarmist talk of Global warming.

The struggle has begun already with China trying to buy our resource companies.We seemed to have forgotten that China is still a totalitarian communist Govt and small minorities don't count.The power of their centralist Govt is paramount.

I was really surprised that Kevin Rudd has taken them on.It will be interesting to see if he backs down under the weight of China's wrath,since they keep us in a manner that is not sustainable.

What about the evidence of rising sea levels? Almost stable for three millenia prior to 1900 (0.1 to 0.2 mm per year), currently at over 3mm per year. If you dont dispute this evidence, then why didn't sea level show a similar during the Medieval Warm Period, or other warm periods during these past millenia? How much did it fall during the Little Ice Age?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

And if the oceans have not been warming, then wouldn't the only cause of sea level rise be melting ice? And isn't this indicative of a warming Earth?

I'd be interested to know what those pro and con the argument for AGW make of this? How might the validity and rate of sea level rise affect an opinion?

Mac “As far as I understand Don Aitkin is qualified in poltical science not physical science.”

That does not disqualify him from holding and expressing an opinion.

I certainly see the need for greater scrutiny (due diligence) of the supposed results of climate modeling processes, if we are to be dragged down a path of “economic de-construction” as a consequence of trying to achieve what might be a myth.

Whilst I am not a “scientist” I believe such a shortcoming does not deny me right to hold an opinion.

That said I am happy to talk to the matter of “climate models” not because I know a whole lot about climate but I do know a lot about computer models and computer modeling, having worked in the business of corporate modeling for the past 20 years.

I fully concur with Dons view to climate models.

GIGO

“To repeat, models are models; they are highly simplified versions of reality, and cannot provide evidence of anything.”

I have made similar comments on other threads previously.

I note particularly

“One recent example, showing a truly catastrophic climate outcome in 20 years' time, was based on the assumption that the central global warming hypothesis is correct.”

I have seen similar errors occur time and again due to inappropriate assumptions of significance of a single variable, relative to the whole.

We are being asked to place credence in sub-science which has an extremely short practical history.

We are all aware of the science of economics, something which has been around for a couple of centuries and the absence of a global economics model.

Ever wondered why?

Too hard

Too many variables

But this is the important one

Uncertainty to the nature and significance of inter-variable relationships

Climate science is no different except for one thing, even less is understood about climate science than is understood about economics

So who in their right mind would place any credence in climate models and

If there is no credence in the models, why are people pretending to tell us that we need to change anything?

The denialists continue to amaze me. Not that they deny climate change, nor that they argue the science - after all the science of complex systems is always disputable and vexed. What amazes me how infrequently I hear them say - I don't believe in climate change, but I know that there is a substantial number of scientists and a large body of evidence that suggest that climate change is occurring and something needs to be done. Faced even with that calculation - ie admitting the possibility that climate change is real - should lead to the conclusion that we need to act not argue. We need to take steps to protect our life support systems not wait and see. What's even more extraordinary is that these changes should have happened anyway - we should be reducing our consumption, moving to renewable sources of energy, eliminating our delusions that we live on a planet of infinite resources that we can consume and dispose of at will. The kind of changes that climate change demands are good and necessary even if climate change is proved wrong.

Col Rouge,

Where did I say that Aitkin wasn't entitled to express an opinion? Ill-informed opinion is, however, a waste of space. Does Aitkin have the appropriate qualifications?

it's just so cute when children play "scientist".

Its interesting to contrast the full paper from Don Aitkin versus the cut down version that appeared here on OLO. The cut down version lost a lot in the editing. Kudos to OLO for providing a link to the full version.

mac, "Don Aitkin is qualified in political science ... irrelevant qualifications". Fair enough. But was nice so to read an article that was honest about that. To read as article that effectively said "I am a layman who has spent some time looking at the evidence, and this is what I see", and whats more to see it said it without any of the shrill rancour found in other articles here on OLO was a breath of fresh air.

KeithB, "2007 was at a solar minimum and a La Nina year and 1998 was a solar max and an El Nino year". That temperatures hadn't risen in the past 10 years was one of the major underpinning's of Don's paper, and its nice to see an explanation of why it might be so.

Q&A, "Many governments, business and religious leaders do [believe in AGW] ... are they all that irrational or stupid as you imply?". Please don't let yourself be dragged into this line of argument. Elsewhere you appeal to the importance of scientific method as basis for evaluating things. These words do the exact opposite. Besides, Don's qualifications are in political science, so I would expect him to comment on the politics behind all this, and I put some weight on those words.

rstuart

Don is a political scientist.

However, political science is not oceanography, atmospheric physics, paleogeochemistry, whatever.

The real issues in dealing with 'climate change' are not so much the science, but politics, economics and social ideology.

To really solve the *global* problems of the world, people have to respect each other's POV and work together. This is difficult for many people with fundamentalist views, Right or Left.

So they use things like political and social ideology to justify inaction. This attitude must be overcome if we are to move on.

mac, you don’t want to hear from politicians or economists. Presumably, then, you have no time for Al Gore and his inconvenient truth, and as the IPCC’s climate projections incorporate economic data, you won’t be interested in those either. I’m wondering, then, on what you base your understanding of global warming? Aren't they the two big kahunas? You’d like to put all your trust in climate “scientists”. However, apart from the fact that a lot of what they do isn’t very scientific, at least not in the way I was taught it, “the science” itself can not determine public policy, which is about making choices based on human needs and values. Like Don, I don’t believe even “the science” of global warming is very reliable at the moment, let alone conclusive enough to provide the basis for sound public policy. Q&A talks about this justifying inaction. The idea of needing to justify expensive and potentially dangerous action doesn't seem to cross his mind. When FM radio stations are playing acoustic sets and calling it emissions-free music, however, I have all the evidence I need of dangerous anthropogenic cerebral warming.

What I find hard to discount is the fact that sea levels for 2000 years prior to 1900 were rising by 0.1 to 0.2 mm per year. Now it is rising by 15 to 30 times that figure. No similar rise during the Medieval Warm period or Roman Warm Period. No great drop during the Little Ice Age.

What is of most significance to me though is the fact that the solutions for reducing carbon emissions are also solutions for peak oil and a developing world. There is now a massive pace of development of renewable technologies, which may challenge coal on a cost basis within years. The sad thing is that the federal government seems intent on wasting $500 million in a futile attempt to keep the dinosaur alive. It would be better spent on commodity exporting infrastructure. At least Australia could make a bit more from this commodity while it is still so highly priced.

Richard Castles

"The idea of needing to justify expensive and potentially dangerous action doesn't seem to cross his (Q&A's) mind."

Where did you get this gem from Richard?

Richard Castles,

There appears to be some confusion in regard to my objection to yet another non- scientist criticising scientists' work. Science and public policy resulting from scientific enquiry are clearly different aspects of human life. Don Aitkin is, as far as I know a political "scientist" and is hardly qualified to give an opinion on global warming. I refer you to the "Sokal Hoax" as a marvellously comical example as how non- scientists can make total buffoons of themselves in attempting to interpret scientific knowledge.Of course I would like to see a climate scientist critique the global warming hypothesis, I'm waiting. And finally, If you would feel no anxiety in submitting yourself to surgery devised by an economist or travel in an aircraft designed by a lawyer,(or live in an economy designed by an economist) good luck. "to each his own trade".

It's all too clear what you trade in, mac.

So many inaccuracies, so little time.

Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 10 April 2008 1:33:50 PM
* The Earth warmed another 0.15 degrees celcius in the last 8 years. (Rahmstorf, 2007)
by Senior Victorian, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:47:32 AM
* I would like to know where you obtained your data. My reliable sources put AGW at the poles at double the rate of the rest of the globe.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:07:33 PM
* Every branch of science constructs hypotheses and tests them. In climate science these hypotheses are called "models". Aitken either misunderstand this or is claiming scientific method is fundamentally flawed.