"They know about the science"

Do they really? Certainly they wouldn't just from watching "An Inconvenient Truth". And as is beginning to emerge from "climategate", it would be foolish indeed to trust some of the leading names in climate "science".

I put the word science here in inverted commas, because it would appear that as I have suspected for a while, climatology is less about science than about ideology. As Mike Hulme - Pofessor of Climate Change at the UEA - wrote in an extraordinary piece in the Guardian, "self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking ... if scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Perhaps I'm reading this out of context, but it seems to me that Hulme has disavowed the most fundamental principles of "normal" science - "first find truth" - and is instead advocating a frankly mediaeval mindset wherein scientific truth must be subservient to ideological conviction.

I rarely post links, but here is the link to Hulme's complete article. Read it, because it's simply the most mind-boggling mea culpa I've read in a long time: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

I'm beginning to understand not only how the "scientists" implicated in climategate came to perpetrate the crimes that they have, but also why they thought they were entirely right to do so.

To return to your topic, I would counter that, in 20 years, no-one will thank the government - or their activist cheer-squads, no matter how well-meaning - who beggared a generation in the name of blind ideology.

'They know about the science..."

Oh, so they know the globe is not warming, do they? Good.

They know that, to the extent there was a scientific 'consensus' that the globe was warming, it was based on computer models *all of which* were wrong, in that they predicted things that in fact did not happen?

They know that the science is overwhelmingly government-funded, and that if you control for the government funded science, the landscape of opinion on global warming is completely different?

They know that governments have poured over 50 billion US dollars into research into global warming, thus creating an industry with a parasitic interest in governmental research and action on global warming.

They know carbon is not a pollutant but is a necessary part of all life, and that it is the cold periods that are bad for life?

They know that the science is infected with the suppression of evidence, and deliberate falsification, to try to get it to cover the fact that the globe is cooling?

They know that the science does not supply value judgements, and therefore it provides *no justification whatsoever* for *any* response by government?

They know that global warming has not killed anyone, but global warming policies are already killing large numbers of people who are starving from food shortages while western governments divert resources on a massive scale from the productive to the parasitic?

Girl, you have been brainwashed by government-funded and government-dictated indoctrination masquerading as education. Until now, you had an excuse. But intellectual honesty requires you to wake up to the fraud that you have been indoctrinated to support, and its anti-human religion of totalitarian power-worship.

Self-interest blocks action indeed. The entire hysterical hoo-haa is a manifestation of the most corrupt and anti-social self-interest.

Clownfish and Peter Hume, I do so hope your grandchildren won't trample your graves for NOT giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, my mistake by the way, I said "mediaeval" when "marxist" would have been much closer to the truth.

The ghost of Trofim Lysenko stalks the halls of the UEA.

Shadyoasis, my grandchildren will more likely be studying early 21st century history as a prime example of the "madness of crowds", wondering how the inhabitants of the most technologically advanced culture in human history could simultaneously have been prey to all manner of anti-rationalist delusions like climate change alarmism, anti-vaccination zealotry, New Age mysticism, Creationism and UFO mythology.

Shadyoasis “Clownfish and Peter Hume, I do so hope your grandchildren won't trample your graves for NOT giving them the benefit of the doubt.”

It appears to me the absence of “benefit” comes from the doubtful propaganda of the climate-change lobby which is after all merely an exercise in

Socialism by Stealth

Climate change is an attempt by the left, the collectivists (Trotsky’s entryists etc) and fellow travellers who, having failed to win the economic argument, are attempting to subvert the rights, inherent in individualism, by pretending the world will be ruined by the new bogey-man, their invention known as “climate-change”.

Carbon trading, Emmissions taxing.. all just attempts to impose a universal levelling process and limit the rewards of entrepreneurial innovation, free enterprise and free trade

and all in the name of that political failure variously referred to as “collectivism”, “communism” and “socialism

I appears, Georgia, that you have not noticed that it is now more obvious than ever that the ETS has no justification.

The great proponent of it, Al Gore has just published a book in which he acknowledges that CO2 does not cause 60% of global warming.

No doubt he thinks he is only 40% lying now, but the basis for demonising CO2 has disappeared, as has the basis for Kyoto and Copenhagen.

It is timely, also, that we now have proof, in the copied Hadley emails, that the little group of IPCC scientists who peer review each others papers , and work to “hide the decline”, have no basis for their pretence that the world is not cooling.

It is cooling, while CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. The last thing we need is an attempt to lower the proportion of this beneficial gas in the atmosphere. We now have 388 ppm, up from an unhealthy 270 ppm, not so long ago.

At 200 ppm plant life would struggle, and the world would suffer food shortages

And now our schoolchildren have been miseducated to support this baseless tax, and to criticise the few politicians with the wit, and knowledge, to oppose it.

If only we sent them as exchange students to the Czech Republic, their misdirection might be reversed.

It is the only nation in the world that tells its citizens the truth about global warming, and whose President offered to debate Al Gore on the question.

Gore, of course, declined. He hates the truth.

I love the way all these eco activists loudly claim there is no leadershiip in government.

Well at least we only have the one federal government.

So how many climate / eco / AGW / anti this or that groups are there?

Really that many, hundreds, no thousands just here in Australia.

So many that we have groups that just try to coalese the other groups, (for which they are paid, lot, as the belief system of the groups is they are all the most important, so should get the biggest say - like little sects aren't you all?)

So you're all little self centered lobby cells, who cannot get along with each other? Correct? Because you all want to be the onee who is most in charge, making the biggest difference?

And you are complaining about self interest - hahhahaha, this is satire yes?

'Although I am certain that the feelings of the electorates haven’t been taken into account in the past with GST, for one example, one thing is clear: not only do MPs understand that the CPRS is weak, but also that their job is not primarily to serve in the best interests of the people, but to get themselves - and their party - re-elected.'

Well well well. If you'd read the most recent polls you'd know that Australians overwhelmgly think we shouldn't do anything about global warming until after we see what the rest of the world want at Copenhagen ... which is the position of only one party in Australia today.

Now politicians are elected to serve and represent their electorates. It is not as the author insanely thinks up to them to determine what is best for their electorate.

Just to correct your error. John Howard and the Liberal Party went to an election promising to introduce a GST. They were elected with the mandate to introduce the GST.

You've gotta be a leftie re-writing history to suit your own ends aren't you Georgia?

PH. You have clearly been reading some paranoid anti-science articles.
1)The consensus is based on decades of peer reviewed papers which cover theory, measurements, models and predictions. All point to something much scarier than the IPCC has allowed to surface. Recent data has supported the more radical models and predictions.
2)Governments are the only sources of funding for non-profit science over long periods. Climate science is a long term discipline. Only recently has private money been spent on "science" for marketing purposes. To suggest that private money is less biassed than public money is so ridiculous as to be an obscene joke. Surely you were grinning when you wrote that!
3)Carbon as pollutant is only used by Climate faux-sceptics. Please quit with the straw-men as it makes you look silly.
4) Again with the "earth is cooling" BS! Glaciers are melting world wide, the Arctic will soon be ice free (hence the recent territorial claims), record temperature extremes world-wide and we hear that science is suppressing evidence.
I work for a South Pacific climate science program. Yes it is government funded. Much of the climate data for the South Pacific is not of sufficient quality to include in the science yet, yet it all points to a major acceleration in warming, as well as alarming sea level rises in some regions. It will take much work to get to the point where we can include all this low quality data as science. If it were to be included now we would hear "Low quality data was used", and when we are conservative and use the best quality we get "they are a excluding data. Bias!". Needless to say, in the real world there is no incentive to fake disastrous predictions. Up until very recently it would have killed your career, and now you still need outstanding evidence for radical claims.
5) Science is not valueless: it values Truth, honesty, humility and shouting when it looks scary or profitable. Human nature takes over from there.

Cont...
6) So Climate change science is killing people now? Do tell!
BTW. The recent bank bailouts cost several thousand times more than the cost of green science. To blame science for world hunger is amazingly silly!
7) It is the religions that are indoctrinating people, not science.
Clownfish: Your mind is easily boggled. Nothing new here.

What I find amusing (sad really but you have to smile) is that Clownfish lumps AGW with anti vaccination zealots!

Gee and I thought the whole science of vaccination is just one great big conspiracy and is just the medical profession trying to cash in our parents fears :)

Strange that he can accept peer reviewed medical research is valid but not so in Climate Science. Sounds like a conflict of interest perhaps?

Having watched the Senate amendments debate this afternoon (Monday) there is no way that the legislation will be ready for vote this year.
It is amazing to learn how piecemeal the Kyoto agreement is.
From my understanding from the days debate our forests do not count towards any sequestration because the Kyoto agreement does not have any mechanism to measure the sequestration of greenhouse gases by forests.
It therefore just ingores the benefits of forests.
This is just one of many anomalies in the global and Australian legislation.
The more I am learning about the actual CPRS the worse it gets.
It needs a lot of work and I am very glad that the Senate is doing its job in making sure the legislation is properly debated.
And with deeper analysis of the UEA CRU Hadley Centre leak it appears that there is no urgency to cut the GHG's.
Hopefully the whistle blower will get a Nobel Prize for services to Ethics in Science.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of climatge chamge theory are, one thing is for certain - the proposed ETS will have a negligable effect on Australia's CO2 emmissions. It is a trading scheme that will line the pockets of banks and brokers with money stolen by stealth from the purses of Australian taxpayers. Everyone will pay dearly. The impost on electricity prices and transport will infiltrate every part of our lives from food to entertainment. All for our less than 2% of global emmissions while dear leader Rudd and his minions jet around the globe, chests puffed out, trying to convince other countries that they are the Messiahs of climate change. The simplest and quickest way to reduce our emmissions is to replace our coal fired base load power supply with an alternative. As he has rejected Nuclear out of hand it will need to gas powered. If all the money wasted thus far on the ETS had been put into doing something useful, we wouldn't have a problem

Georgia,
Thanks for pointing out the conflict of interests that seems to so often disable politicians - power to the people or power to the party?
What seems to get lost in all the vitriol about global warming and GHG's is that it is only one of the symptoms of our guzzling of resources. Probably the biggest and possibly the most dangerous, but if we can't find the nouse to deal with that then what of our declining water tables, loss of topsoil, nitrogen pouring into the sea, species and habitat destruction, and so on? If we want our civilisation to carry on for the foreseable future we are going to have to learn to live with our environment, not off it.
We and our elected representatives must get to grips with that. If the mayhem surrounding the CPRS is anything to go by, when economic greed and self interest seem to trump common sense, we are in for a rough ride.

McHena
"f we want our civilisation to carry on for the foreseable future we are going to have to learn to live with our environment, not off it. We and our elected representatives must get to grips with that. If the mayhem surrounding the CPRS is anything to go by, when economic greed and self interest seem to trump common sense, we are in for a rough ride."

That is a classic example of the nasty pious irrational anti-human fascism that caused the whole thing. It's not about 'the environment', it's about power.

McHena, why don't you stop using natural resources, you half-wit? What are you doing using electricity for, and sitting inside a house for? How can you possibly reconcile that with your belief system?

You are richer than most of the world's population. Why do you require politicians to forcibly redistribute it to the poor? Why don't you do it voluntarily, hypocrite? Or do as the quail of the field do, and live among tussocks bare-arsed to the blast you idiot. Can't you see? Don't you get the connection? Are you honestly that vain and stupid?

And then these idiots have got the gall to talk about civilisation. By far the greatest threat to civilisation comes from socialism, not global warming.

We have just come through a century in which this same belief system caused over a hundred million deaths, tens of millions of which were from the collectivisation of agriculture, and now the same criminal idiots want a scheme in which agriculture and industry are demonised, and the whole world's economy *and* the whole world's ecology is put in the hands of fascist central planners who think the prime function of government is forcible redistribution of other people's labour and property, and human life is of lower priority than 'the environment' aka the political power of the parasite class.

What makes you think they wouldn't be pleased if large numbers of people just happened to die?

"We have just come through a century in which this same belief system caused over a hundred million deaths, tens of millions of which were from the collectivisation of agriculture, and now the same criminal idiots want a scheme in which agriculture and industry are demonised, and the whole world's economy *and* the whole world's ecology is put in the hands of fascist central planners who think the prime function of government is forcible redistribution of other people's labour and property, and human life is of lower priority than 'the environment' aka the political power of the parasite class."

Come on, Peter. Don't hold back. Say what you REALLY think.

You're right, though.

Go Peter :)

It's about time these parasite/contribute/nothing to the world loony's copped it in the clacker!

I wonder if any of them have actually thought what it would be like for 7 billion people to live 250 years ago? Without candles of course, because imagine the CO2 coming off 21 billion candles!

Graham Young.

After reading all the tripe and venom on this subject, I am not too sure why you continue to run this forum.

You don't need to be a scientist to come to the conclusion that all is not right with the world. In our own area, the water table in the Koo-wee-rup swamp area is dropping and there is an increase in the amount of salt due to over use of this resource. In a very short time inflow of sea water will render the whole area unsuitable for agriculture.

The same thing applies to the Great Artesian Basin, where until fairly recently, uncapped bores allowed water to needlessly run to waste. These resources have taken millions of years to accumulate, but we have only taken a hundred years to destroy them.

All around the world there are glaciers which are receding at an alarming rate. Why? Because the temperature is rising and the ice is melting. It is surely not just coincidence that all these things have happened since the dawn of the industrial revolution when the per capita cosumption of energy has started to increase exponentially.

It won't be too long before we will all be back to riding bicycles, because will will have run out of fuel to drive our expensive motor cars.

The human race is its own worst enemy and unfortunately it is probably too late to reverse the trend which will take it to oblivion.

David

Dear Georgia
I realize you understand the science behind Climate Change so how come the Emission Trading Scheme has you baffled?
"huge amount of taxpayer dollars going to big polluters in the form of free permits to pollute." No taxpayer dollars are going anywhere. The taxpayer is missing out on revenue from sale of permits.
The permits only have value if they are used for carbon reduction activities. So if a coal-fired power company directly sells its permits to other carbon "polluting" industries then global emissions go down and the money received can be used to finance the power company's own carbon pollution reduction program. Alternatively it may sell its permits to an intermediary who then on sells to "polluting" customers. Electricity consumers will thus not initially be paying the higher price necessary for the power company to buy carbon permits and/or use dearer but less "polluting" sources of electricity. However once the "period of grace" expires the power companies will be required to have the requisite number of permits for the amount of carbon they emit.
The big users of electricity in Australia are not the "big polluters" but the Australian people who consume electricity. No demand for electricity, no coal-fired power stations.

Georgina,
Contrary to some of the curmudgeons on this site, your article is clear, cogent and I agree with your logic.

I must say well spotted, with your questioning of that parliamentarian's bizarre priorities. I would add to that, by pointing out that the commonwealth (the people) pays their salary NOT THE *&%#$@ party. To me, that's a dead give away where his loyalties should be. Mind you, I'm not surprised, such is the problem with Political parties. They demand precedence over the public interest. (see organisational theory)

As for your concern over ETS I share them see this site.
<http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/11/091127124225.htm>.
What I've read of the book, albeit, half a chapter its very interesting, and gives substances to your concerns.

Good luck and I look forward to more writings from you.