john kosci, if the policies in response weren't so ridiculous, there wouldn't be this poltical disconnect, between the science and policy. Eg. Banning incadescent globes

I haven’t read the 79 posts, I’d just like to comment on Clive Hamilton. I first met him in the mid-80s. At the time, CH and Peter Brain (NIESR) were spruiking strategic trade theory, the notion that (contrary to all the evidence) government intervention could create globally-competitive firms. Earlier, Paul Krugman, an eminent economist and trade theorist, had been perplexed by the persistence of interventionist views. As an exercise, he developed a seminal paper on STT. He found, to his surprise, that, theoretically, there were some situations in which STT could work. However, it was extremely unlikely that such circumstances could ever arise in practice, a point which CH and PB failed to grasp.

The only example they could point to in support was Airbus. Two problems: as of 1990, the Airbus had had $US26 billion of net subsidies, the main beneficiaries being long-distance travellers rather than the people of the subsidising countries (it’s still in strife); and the scale of operation and subsidy involved was way out of Australia’s capacity.

At the time, Hamilton was a Commonwealth PS economist who was very poorly regarded by his peers. He later teamed up with physicist Ian Lowe at the Australia Institute, a bit of a surprise to me as Lowe had publicly lambasted me on a number of occasions around 1988-91 when I had suggested that there was some benefit in bringing economics into consideration of environmental issues. This abuse extended to my proposal for a study of the potential economic impacts of accelerated global warming; Lowe later embraced the IPCC’s AGW scenarios, all of which are based on economic modelling

As for Brain, after being paid a lot of money around 1996 by Queensland’s so-called Department of State Development to advise on trading opportunities, he declared in his report that coal exports would cease by 2000 because of greenhouse concerns! We couldn’t get him to explain how this conclusion derived from his work.

So, know Hamilton by the company he keeps, and don’t be surprised, Graham, when he fails to argue through facts and analysis.

Faustino really typifies a certain type of posting on OLO that gives this site a poor name.

"At the time [mid-eighties], Hamilton was a Commonwealth PS economist who was very poorly regarded by his peers."

Let's unpack that cowardly allegation a bit.

1) No names, no pack-drill: just 'by his peers'. Un-named. Not quantified. No sources cited. All word-of-mouth, as reported third-hand by the anonymous Faustino.

2) 'Poorly regarded'. With no specific standard of measurement. Indeed, it could represent praise if Hamilton were getting on the wick of deeply conservative and ill-performing mandarins.

3) It relates to a period, the mid-1980s, at which remove it would be next to impossible to verify or falsify the allegation.

So, we can smile ironically when Faustino advises, Graham, that he shouldn't be surprised when Hamilton "fails to argue through facts and analysis". Oh no, we'll leave the facts and analysis to Faustino. He's so full of them - or it.

I don't know what legal redress anyone has for such a cowardly anonymous character assassination. But I sure think I should not be the only poster to tell Faustino he is way out of line.

Where's our Editor-in-chief who was bemoaning ad hominem attacks a few days go?

Finally, lest OLO become even more akin to that other coward's castle, let Faustino put his real name to his posting. Then we'll know he's not just venting his spleen without giving the other person a fair go.

Elizabeth Moore

Dear Q&A

There are three principal geophysical regions "affected" by Walker Circulation. This does not mean there are three Walker Circulations. Walker circulation, single, is interacting with topography and other viables, e.g., lakes. The effects from Walker Circulation is called zonal overturning. Overturning is also influenced by orbital events. [Graham et al, Nature, 2001]. Only a coincidence :-). Swings have occurred, yes sir, about five times in the last 50,000 years:

"The most important result of our study is the identification and
dating of wet and dry events on the Altiplano (Fig. 2a) for
the past 50,000 cal. yr." [Graham et al, Nature, 2001].

Walker circulation requires a warm zone and cool zone, else how does a vortex carry the precipitation.

I read an Nature article not Wikipedia.

Happy to look at your perspective. Do have a few journal citations? Not too much, I need time to read. Thanks.

This was a pretty nasty piece Graham. There were so many misrepresentations of Clive's article that frankly I was quite shocked.

But before I delete my account and say goodbye forever, let me take issue with your comments on the quality of the denialist articles you publish. You say you publish an article if it's arguable. Really Graham, have a look at some of the dross that you have published on this topic. There was the accountant who drew a line from the record temperature in 1998 to 2008 and 'proved' that global warming ended ten years ago. And what about that spate of silly articles saying Y2K was a hoax and that tells us something about global warming? And those articles full of whole-hearted praise for Martin Durkin, comparing him with Einstein I think? And then when Durkin turned out to be a charlatan, the articles criticising Tony Jones for daring to ask him hard questions? Some of the material you've accepted on AGW might be arguable, but most of it's just sophistry and propaganda.

It's quite sad really. Many of the articles on OLO are excellent but when it comes to AGW you seem to have a blind spot.

Well said, Graham. I've only heard Clive Hamilton speak once - at a Communities conference in Melbourne in 2004 - and I was very disappointed at the bias and lack of political balance in his speech. If he now wants to take his bat and ball and play somewhere else, well, OLO is probably better off without him.