Q&A, the greenhouse effect is not in dispute - by Senator Fielding or anyone else.

It strikes me that you are suggesting that those scientists who reject global warming (oops, isn't it 'climate change' these days?) alarmism are ideological rather than genuinely sceptical. This is a big part of the problem, I think, as such vilification works against freedom of science.

The science is not settled and the scientists who are sceptical or becoming sceptics is growing. Here's a list as of May 2007, which has their names, qualifications and reasons for changing from 'believers' to sceptics: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12

Media bias is so overwhelming that the sceptics rarely receive a fair go. Yet Al gore's movie seems to have been shown in most of our schools, without the counterpoint of either the IPCC or the scientists who are sceptical of the alarmism. Q&A, kids out there actually believe we're under threat of 100 metre sea rises unless we refrain from fossil fuels as an energy source

byork

It strikes me that a comment like "oops, isn't it 'climate change' these days?" shows a lack of understanding of how the term "climate change" was popularised (by George W Bush and his climate change policy advisor).

I am NOT "suggesting that those scientists who reject (anthropogenic) global warming alarmism are ideological rather than genuinely sceptical" (although some are).

I am suggesting that the 'casual sceptic', a layperson, a non-scientist or a person who is anti-science in general, cannot possibly test and evaluate the science themselves. It is they who most often form opinions (on complex science) based on an ideological perspective.

Both you and I know that the vast majority of scientists are not 'alarmists' (although some are).

Of course the science is not settled, you will always find robust debate in the corridors of science or from peer review on pre-publication or upon formal publication in scientific journals.

What most people (and it appears you as well) don't appreciate is that they most often debate the minutiae, the details, the fine print, crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's (we're a pedantic lot).

I am quite aware of 'that list' (and Senator Inhofe and Marc Marano) byork.

Perhaps you have misinterpreted where I am coming from. If that is the case, can you suggest a better format or process other than the IPCC in getting the 'science' out there? Media shock-jocks, the popular press and so called 'denialist' blog-sites don't cut it for me.

For what it's worth, even if the planet were to enter into a climate change 'tipping point' (which imho it isn't) it would take 100's (if not 1000's) of years to experience the sea level rises spruiked by Al Gore.

As for fossil fuels, they will be around a while yet, we just have to find better (and alternative) ways of utilising a mix of energy resources.

Besides, the planet doesn't end in 2100.

There is an article in Quadrant which demonstrates (albeit tongue-in-cheek) the strong correlation between Aztec human sacrifice and weather patterns.

Centuries of data now suggest that global temperatures are rising because the Sun God is angry and needs to be appeased in that time-proven Aztec manner. Even if we ignore the data, if it didn't work they certainly would have discontinued the practice.

Is this reasoning any different from blaming it on sunspot activity, undersea volcanos or the numerous other alternative explanations - anything but conceding the remote possibility that what's happening may have been aggravated by human activity?

How many of you have seen fleas on a dog. Even six billion of us are little more than fleas on this big sphere spinning around the sun. Fleas on a dog are a nuisance but usually won’t kill him. The difference that the few humans in Australia can make to the atmosphere pale into insignificance in relation to the flatulence generated by a good evenings curry in India. We need to get things into perspective.

Just because we have a better education system than most should not allow us to frighten the daylights out of our kids. When I was a kid we were told to be aware that the world could end any day, by a war of the nuclear powers, and that it was only a balance of terror that kept us alive. Neither side ever let off a nuke in anger since World War II.

I am all for science, it has the ability to give us a continuing increase in our living standards, and improve our health. It is why we are six billion now, and still increasing. It is why we have proven doomsayers wrong time and time again. When I was a kid, the average ton of corn took an acre to grow. Now four tonnes an acre are nor unusual, and there is enough food in the world if properly distributed. Once the land was only capable of producing what it made from its own resources, but now we can add minerals and trace elements and not only produce better food but more of it.

Senator Steve has got it right, questioning the alarmists. Some one has to ask the hard questions and it should be Senators who do so. Sure there are reasons why the Liberals are against carbon taxes, but why should they be denigrated for that. They are probably looking after their big business mates, but it is the poor who will pay, not the wealthy. Someone has to generate the wealth to sustain our living standards. Killing off some of our biggest moneymakers does not make sense

Rache, sceptics do accept that human activity could be a significant contributor to the 0.8 degree increase in warming over the past 150 years. It's just that the other hypotheses are also plausible. And, as I said in previous posts, there's no consensus as to the extent to which human activity plays a part. Yet we're asked to take such drastic measures as a carbon tax and to subsidize less efficient alternative energies. This is a real problem, especially for poorer people, as it can only reduce living standards, not to mention scores of thousands of workers made redundant.

The difference between the hypotheses that discount human activity and the hypothesis about the Aztec sun god is that the former (sun spots, etc) are scientific whereas the sun god hypothesis isn't. For a hypothesis to be scientific it needs to be able to be subjected to tests of falsification not just verification. Gods of any kind cannot be subjected to such tests but any scientific hypothesis can be, and is, and that is why we have progressed in science - our mastery over Nature.

Q&A, thanks for clarificiation of 'casual sceptics'. Still the alarmists call the tune, receive the headlines, and influence policy. The public generally think the planet is doomed unless they accept carbon taxes. Most people think carbon is a pollutant. 'Nuff said.

10/2008


Excerpt:

“Of course, the reason Fielding is hitting the headlines this week is his decision to vote with the Government to raise the Medicare levy surcharge threshold and increase the tax on alcopops.

"This was remarkable because he had previously refused to vote for the legislation, bravely standing up for the Aussie battler in the form of private health insurance companies, just as Jesus would have. Yet now he has had a change of heart, possibly after being visited by angels in the night, which is nothing more than a continuation of the freewheeling, off-the-cuff, devil-may-care, don't-really-understand-my-job approach that Fielding brings to all his endlessly entertaining shenanigans.

“And of course that impish sense of razzle-dazzle is at the heart of Fielding's most powerful political weapon: stunts! In his time in parliament, Senator Fielding has taught us all that there is no pressing social crisis so bad that it cannot be solved by wackiness.

"Do we need to recycle more to avoid being suffocated under an enormous pile of garbage? Uh-oh, I guess it's time to prance about outside Parliament House dressed as a beer bottle! Problem... solved.

“His zany escapades know no bounds: take off your shirt for pensioners; push around a tiny trolley for grocery prices; call for amendments to the luxury car tax and then vote it down without suggesting any. Outrageous!

“I can't help thinking that in our modern obsession with "policy" and "process" and "thought", we've forgotten the virtues of good old-fashioned insanity.

"Maybe, just maybe, we could all use a dose of Senator Fielding's jolly Christian dementia in our lives. In these times of panic and despair, when questions abound and answers spring but scarcely from the stony ground of leadership, what's wrong with rolling up our sleeves, knuckling down, and acting stupid?

“You didn't want him. You didn't vote for him. You don't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. But you need him, now more than ever. We all do.”

How easy would it be for the Heartland Institute's grim reapers to indoctrinate Mr Flip Flop? Pushover mate!

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:oMRHZoVA364J:newmatilda.com/2008/10/16/thank-god-steve-fielding+steve+fielding+climate+change&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au