Xoddam,

In announcing the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee described Gore as ‘probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted’ in the ‘struggle against climate change.’ And, without a hint of irony, they named him as ‘for a long time ... one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians.’

In fact, Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to WRECK the prospects of effective international action on climate change. As leader of the US delegation at Kyoto, he announced on 8 December 1997 that, following discussions with President Clinton, he was ‘instructing our delegation right now to show increased negotiating flexibility, if a comprehensive plan can be put in place, one with realistic targets and timetables, market mechanisms, and the meaningful participation of key developing countries.’ In that spirit, he urged the assembled heads of state and distinguished delegates to ‘transcend our differences and commit to secure our common destiny: a planet ... whose people everywhere are able to reach for their God-given potential.’

Three days after delivering this sermon to his international audience, Gore declared for US domestic consumption that "As we [the US] said from the very beginning, we [the US] will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort..." Of course, Gore knew full well that the circumstances that might have led the agreement to be submitted for ratification would not arise. His cynicism was breathtaking.

Professor Ian Lowe, now President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, observed this charade at first hand. Writing in the New Scientist (3 January 1998), Lowe said that ‘the issue is far more complicated than might be expected by hurried judgements and from agreements hammered out in the middle of the night by non-scientists at international conferences’ (p. 45). It is simplistic to blame unnamed ‘useful idiots’ for the subsequent policy failures

xoddam,

Perhaps I am failing to understand you, but there seems to be some confusing doublespeak there. You thank me for constructive engagement, whilst seeming to advocate that my opinion should be withheld - except, perhaps, in kooky niches like OLO which give people the freedom to dissent, something I thought Clive Hamilton was passionate about. I don't understand your differentiation between "withholding" opinion and censoring it. Who decides what is "counterfactual" or counter-productive if there is no open discussion, or right to argue the facts, especially in regard to science where vast unknowns are acknowledged even by the IPCC. Was Tim Flannery's opinion referring to the roofs of 10-storey buildings being lapped by rising seas - that is by levels around 50 times greater than the IPCC's own projections - factual and productive? Would I be labelled an evil denialist to disagree with this projection. I'm quite happy for, say, flat-earthers to be given a space to argue their case, because I believe their views could be easily countered by an opposing argument, complete with pictures from outer space. I don't feel threatened by them and could easily weigh up the evidence. The media is packed with stuff that I regard as baloney. Some say that God cannot be factually proved, which is the essence of faith, so are you also wishing to censor religious expression?

cont.

I hope you will allow me to quote from the opinion I cited:

"As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, which was published in 1859 and remains essential reading for anyone who believes in free speech: "Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action. On no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right."

Mill would have had little truck with the notion that manmade climate change is such an established fact that it should be above rigorous debate. Describing his age as one also "terrified at skepticism", he wrote: "The claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society. There are, it is alleged, certain beliefs so useful, not to say indispensable to wellbeing, that it is [the] duty of governments to uphold those beliefs ... It is often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what such men would wish to practise."

I repeat that what is labelled scepticism or denialism, as the authors argue, is in relation to many aspects of the issue, making censorship potentially and dangerously far-reaching. Finally, the acknowledgement of hyperbole, however appropriate in your view, is in some measure an admission of untruthfulness, ie. "counterfactual".

hi guys, im a local portrait, wedding & contemporary photographer & Artist In Manly Sydney Australia. Over the last 17 years I have taken many photos of families on the beach & even Slam volley ball events.
One thing I have noticed over the last 10 years is the water rising , enough to actually stop 4 sets of nets being erected for volley ball games as the beach is no longer straight & wide enough. This has obly happened over the last 2 years ! I have some images at my website www.actionmasterphoto.com.au under sport & Art work. If visual evidence keeps you "rational" then I believe you are being ignorant to what's really happening & to many, unfortunately, ignorance is bliss I guess.

The real orthodoxy here, that relies on unfounded belief and no science, is the belief that nothing people can do will effect the climate. It has no scientific basis but it is belief in that orthodoxy that the authors are appealing to, not healthy scepticism. They have completely inverted the truth by falsely casting belief/faith in that orthodoxy as scepticism and casting conclusions of ongoing scientific inquiry, of conclusions based on expert knowledge, as conforming to orthodoxy.
The suggestion that critical analysis - scepticism - is absent in climate science is untrue. Shame on the authors.
The attempt to link anxiety from the genuinely disturbing and world changing understanding of how human activities effect climate to Green political irrationality, like it's about green agendas not the climate of the one world we have, is contemptible. The urging of people to doubt the best understanding of climate we have in favour of climate science's losers and not take the real and very serious consequences of carrying on like... well, like the orthodoxy that nothing people can do will change the climate is scientific fact, is endangering our future. Clearly the authors are trying to frame debates and manipulate public opinion. I shudder at the consequences.

Posted elsewhere, but will recap here.

Politics (and economics, and religion) muddy the waters. The vast majority of scientists just want to do what they do best – present their research (in the appropriate forums may I add) and otherwise live a normal life. If the substance of their research proves to be challenging, to whomever (the status quo, BAU, entrepreneurs, evangelists, pollies, add your own) – so be it.

In terms of AGW, at the end of the day, it is up to the ‘whomevers’ to deal with these challenges – the major policy and decision makers are. For those who criticise the UNFCCC or IPCC process, please ... present your case for a better medium to address the problems of ‘climate change’, or suggest a better process to gather and disseminate the collective science garnered over the interim.

GW alarmists, head-in-the-sanders and ‘deniers’ (not genuine sceptics – in the scientific sense) should all take a long, deep, breath – their actions (and inactions) are not doing anyone, anywhere, any good.

There are extremists/fundamentalists on both sides of the fence – one just has to look in the populist media and blogosphere.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for true sceptics. Scientists are pedants by nature (a single wrong word can destroy their careers) but most people can be less pedantic (more disingenuous), particularly in populist media – they often distort and misrepresent the science (intentionally or not) for their own agenda or in (with respect) their own ignorance.

There is a lot of debate in the scientific community about climate change; however, this is more to do with the nuances and the details ('scientific consensus' is being ‘spun’ by the ‘whomevers’). For example, there is much research being done on attribution and climate sensitivity, as it must.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, it would make sense to live and develop in a more sustainable way – this is the real debate the politicians (and the authors of this article) are struggling with, not the science.

Xoddam, welcome back.