Why do we tolerate our politicians deciding on critical *scientific* issues without even seeking appropriate, objective advice from scientific experts in the relevant field.

Abbott, on a recent Lateline issue, admitted he hadn't sought any advice from any relevant scientific expert on the validity of AWG. He claimed he was a politician (not a scientist) therefore his (and his party's) purpose was to oppose the government, who had on these issues.

Had he done so, he would have been told that unless a price is put on carbon, all other non costing options wouldn't alter anything.

Surely the opposition.
- Should be informed on the science before making decisions to oppose.
- Shouldn't they be putting the country first before their party differentiation for electoral purposes.
- Shouldn't the parties consider the overall good for the people before dogma

Good point, Minchin once wanted his opposing view on record in a senate review.
He ask to and did go on record saying cigarette smoke was not dangerous.
He very much is, to his party as much as our country along with the ones who voted Abbot in.
We will see those who decry this subject but after the next election, just months after the climate change conference, go before March, we will have fun observing the changeling's change yet again.

Belly: "He ask to and did go on record saying cigarette smoke was not dangerous."

I thought you must have been pulling our collective legs. But no, googling for Minchin takes me to his wikipedia page, and lo and behold it quotes his statement in the Minority Report on Tobacco-related Illnesses. He actually quoted research from the tobacco institue to support his position. Anything he says on AGW would almost be an anti-climax. But nonetheless, it did come as a surprise that he opposes compulsory voting.

Now after having taken the time to read a few of Minchin's speaches, I can't help but wonder if he is a bit of a plagiarist. They almost identical to some of the comments here on OLO.

This is a real hoot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O-E_GN0Kg

You're kidding? Even I wouldn't have attributed that level of corporate amorality to Minchin.

The scientific facts don't matter to Abbott, Minchin et al. They've formed a denialist ideological view that is now so entrenched that they can't back down. Idiots.

I'm not optimistic, but I'd like to think that it's still possible for my grandkids to live in an environment like I did when I was their age. It wasn't nearly as technologically and materially profligate as contemporary expectations, but I think that we could survive quite easily a general retraction in the universal availability of all consumer goods and services to everybody who wants them, regardless of whether they can afford them.

Because I seriously think that's what's going to happen, whether we like it or not. All those climate change delusionists who babble on about adaptation ought to think about adapting to more modest material, energy and technology consumption.

I think that's the best long term scenario. Rudd's ETS had been compromised to the point where it would have had a less than positive effect on anything. Abbott's enthusiastic embrace of climate change denialism would be more of a worry if such a clear majority of Australians weren't concerned by AGW and its effects on them and their children.

I often wonder who on earth votes for
these people?

They say that we get the politicians
that we deserve - well I know I don't
deserve these guys!

What do they read? (Or do they read at all?)
How can their ignorance be explained?

"It is what you read when you don't have to
that determines what you will be when you
can't help it."
(Oscar Wilde).

How can someone oppose something they know nothing
about - and can't be bothered consulting with
experts who may be able to explain things to them?

It's beyond my comprehension.

Well actually Foxy, we didn't really vote Abbott in at all did we?
He was voted in by his party with only one vote majority, so even his own party are not all behind him!

Maybe I am naive, but I always thought the politicians took advice from the scientific experts on subjects such as climate change?

As far as I can see, Abbott takes his advice from the Bible, and we all know that the people who wrote that believed the earth was flat!
God help us all.

CJ Morgan: "The scientific facts don't matter to Abbott, Minchin"

Really? What made you think that?

Lets see:

- Howard says kids are thrown overboard, while ensuring he doesn't get the hear first hand reports from the Navy until he has won the election.

- Howard accepts and defends George Bush'es assertion that Iraq is an an epicentre of terrorism and harbours weapons of mass destruction, while the UN appointed inspector who has spent years in the place says the reverse.

- Minchin says cigarette smoke isn't harmful, quoting a Tobacco institute study.

- Abbott, Rhodes Scholar and obviously highly intelligent man, says AGW is crap while admitting he hasn't looked at the evidence put forward by science.

If there are political fortunes to be won at the cost of telling a few blatant lies, surely it must be patently obvious to blind Freddy what passes for the "right" now will choose lies and political expedience over honesty and principle. This has become their modus operandi.

It wasn't always like that. At least I hope not, as I used to vote for them. And I imagine it can't remain like this. Surely to god Australia won't vote for a man who denies AGW while openly admitting he hasn't considered the evidence. Surely he and his political ilk will be consigned to the political dustbin. Surely?

Actually examinator, these clowns don't and cannot decide the validity of scientific issues.

What they can do however is decide and debate on on the validity and appropriateness of political action required from them in the face of such issues. It's not science, it's politics. That pretty much sums up most of the anti-climate science crowd. Their politics and political senses tell them that it's not right for them (it's Socialism by stealth, lefty BS, New World Order or whatever), the science and evidence they decide to believe only comes after.

Some people laugh at conspiracy theorists, but I have found that the propensity for conspiracy theory-type thinking exists in just about all of us, sadly. It mostly comes out of frustration at a perception of not having their opinions valued and not being able to 'win'.

Ironically, because of the recognition of this, the more shrill the accusations of conspiracy, the less I am inclined to listen.

Strange bunch.

I would have thought opposing something you knew nothing about was much more sensible, than wanting to introduce a law to change something you know nothing about.

That hasn't stopped our Ruddie however, has it?

Good morning hasbeen, you are not Minchin are you?
Sound a lot like him.
Your ideas have driven conservatives into a corner, have no doubt for them internal war is about to be long and hard.
Now lets forget science, look at world population growth in the last 100 years.
Add the impact of industrialization, development of the petroleum industry, motor cars, trucks, trains and planes.
If we have not played a roll in climate change why not?
While my party is not yet with me, they will be, if, hate agreeing with conservatives,
We sell our uranium, and build our own Nuclear power stations, this small country will cut not just our own green house gasses but have a dramatic impact on the whole worlds outputs.

Hmm Belly,
So far as I, a self confessed scientific ignoramus can ascertain it was science which enabled mankind to flourish to the extent of unmanageable overpopulation. Science has brought us a few good things I must admit. It has also brought us pollution, weapons of mass destruction it has brought us the ability to keep useless members of our society much longer at ever increasing expense to decent people. Ever bothered to check the amount of waste from drug treatment centers & hospitals ? Oh yes, science is great but not as great as many like to believe. Yes I can not understand how Govt. Ministers get portfolios of which they know nothing about & when the Peter Principle cuts in we're left to cop the mess. Yes Tony Abbott was elected by a handful of people, Kevin Rudd's election was sanctioned by millions. Which is the more scary scenario ? At the 1930's german elections the National Sozialists romped in at the polls. They then really made use of science.
I'm merely saying that science like everything else, is at the mercy of indoctrinated egotists & always misused.

Shock! Horror!

People and politicians vote and make decisions based on self interest.

The cost of cutting emissions in any one country are enourmous and will have a mass impact on the economy. Also the effect on the environment of only one country cutting emissions is nearly zero.

Every country is posturing to get the least committment for itself whilst getting the greatest global committment. At this point the science is almost irrelevant.

With Australia's emmissions at about 80% above 1990 levels what can Rudd commit to without ruining the economy or moving the base level to 2009.

It is depressing that our politicians, notably those presently in opposition, think that their job is to aggressively champion the most retrograde and ignorant stance taken by the most ill-informed sector of the voting public.

We need political leaders that know how to lead. That are prepared to view all the available information, at least in summary form, as supplied by independant experts (YES we KNOW they are not scientists, duh!) They should be willing to consult, have enough brain power to assess, and the cojones to take the right stand, for the good of our country and the benefit of future generations.

And that would mean saying no to all these mendicant industries that are demanding that we pay them to do the right thing and clean up their act.

It's scary, but T(ony)Rex Abbott might end up making even Little Johnny look like an advanced thinker

No point worrying about it.
They have gone mad over there in Copenhagen.
It appears most countries are insisting Australia must count
the CO2 from bushfires !
No suggestion as to how you do that, just do it.

The whole ETS thing is a totally corrupted system in Europe because
there are ways yo verify who produces what, except from electricity bills. So guess who will get that tax.

In any case it won't matter, long before it gets too much hotter
we will be in big oil & coal decline and the climate model program
will try to divide by zero.

So much for politicians and scientists.

ps the reason the children were thrown overboard was because they
had scuttled the boat.

The basics of climate change are so simple that anyone who says they cant understand it is obviously mentally defective and should be pensioned off and looked after. Either that or they are greedy, evil, selfish bastards who dont give a f#%$ about anything but their own greed and money and power and their cowardly fear that they might lose some of it.
The scientists are now giving us plenty of evidence of actual changes that are happening and some of that and future predictions are incorrect/incomplete and some is up for debate. But the basic science of CO2 and other gasses and their interaction with energy from the sun and the earth are long settled and agreed upon. Without CO2 their would be nothing but ice on earth. The more of it there is in the atmosphere the more of an effect it will have. There is much much more CO2 in the atmosphere than before the industrial revolution. Most of the extra is a result of humans burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons. One day that carbon will be incorporated into plants and removed from the atmosphere. This is the carbon cycle. It has been accepted science for many many years. The question is will there be any humans around to see it continue?

Bazz: "ps the reason the children were thrown overboard was because they had scuttled the boat."

No Bazz. The children simply were not thrown overboard. There was a senate enquiry into it, held while the Howard government ran the show. The enquiry concluded it didn't happen. The evidence they based that conclusion on is public, and in particular the signals sent Navy vessel are publicly available. At no stage did those remarkably detailed signals say kids were thrown overboard. The crew from the vessel also had to testify to the senate enquire, and they said it didn't happen.

With evidence like that you would have to be die hard right wing conspiracy theorist to insist are all liars and the kids really were thrown overboard.

is there anyone objective enough to consider how many scientists support the global warming theory and how many don't?

Hasbeen

Love your Luddite logic, I don't know anything about this so I'll oppose it. It *explains* a lot about your comments.
i.e. I don't understand accounting so I'll oppose it...good strategy...for fools.

Funny, old son, I always thought that the logical, objective and sensible thing to do was to be informed *before* making a decision.

BTW who said Rudd or his government doesn't understand the the science, at least he consulted the scientists. if he didn't then he is as big a fool as the Mad Monk.

Austin Powerless: "is there anyone objective enough to consider how many scientists support the global warming theory and how many don't?"

I think just about everyone commenting here has been through that. If you haven't, look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

One comment on this. Be careful to distinguish between generic scientists who may of spent most of their lives studying rocks, fruit flies or the ancient Aztecs, and climate scientists who have spent their scientific lives trying to understand and predict climate.

The opinions of generic scientists (ie those commenting outside of their area of expertise) are not too different to those of the general public. The more stringent you are in demanding the person knows what they are talking about, the closer to unanimous the consensus becomes. Thus in the most stringent study, Oreskes, 2004 (see above link) that looked at roughly 1000 peer reviewed papers involving climate, there were no published papers that disagreed with the AGW hypothesis.

examinator, I am aware of only one Australian weather forecaster who has produced results that resemble accuracy, And that is Inigo Jones RIP, who over 50 years ago forecast this current warming period (drought).

Rstuart,

This would then imply that Ross Garnaut is not qualified to comment.

"Garnaut attended the Australian National University and attained a Bachelor of Arts in 1967, and a PhD in 1972"

His comments on the economic effects were based on information fed to him by others.

SM
You forgot the others who were appropriately educated and evidence on both sides.

I don't remember MM doing either?

An after thought. It seems to me that politicians (major Parties) and their supporters seem to justify their political shenanigans with an underlying attitude akin to that of team members in some high school debating contest. One where the only objective is to win, at almost any cost, not the the truth or what is best for the country.

What they don't seem to understand parliaments and politicians are supposed to *LEAD and GOVERN* on our behalf (all of us not just special interests , or people who agree with them.) Its not some meaningless game that the outcomes won't really matter this is serious.

SM's shock horror and MM cynical comments simply don't fit with the importance of the situation, much less the topic.

Everyone's fear that their country might be disadvantaged by Copenhagen is blinding them to the *REAL* point of them being there.
And people wonder why I despise most politicians.

mikk, mate, you do not need to make remarks like that.
Just enjoy the lost nature of those you describe.
See Bazz and grin at the totally silly remark they scuttled the boat!
How uniformed can you get?
Yes the kids did not get thrown over board but Minchin did say smoke from cigarettes is safe.
It is true, more scientists agree than disagree with man made climate change.
Only the truly deprived or is it depraved? could say country's currently agreeing to cut emissions are just looking to tax us.

God, or the ethics you believe in, doesn't stop people expressing op-inions and even changing them and that's o.k. too if one is fair-dinkum.I have changed my opinions on subjects a lot in 60 years since I was "sweet sixteen." But politicians have to be two-faced if they are in a party.That's political democracy.But it's a job, and someone has to do it!If asked a question on a subject one does not have a clue about. The honest answer the Dalai Lama would give is:" I DON'T KNOW!"

'

The answer as we are in a democracy is a resounding no!
Just because someone has a science degree it does not in any way qualify them as honest or indeed sensible.
You silly billies can all do what the next white coat and clip board tells you to do but do not include the rest of us.
The Victorian Government spent three million tax payer dollars on on a study on getting rid of carp from Victorian waterways. The conclusion was that more money needed to be spent on studying the problem. What an absolute joke! I would suggest the Victorian Government actually do what we pay them for and govern but they are labour so no chance of that!

Shadow Minister: "This would then imply that Ross Garnaut is not qualified to comment...His comments on the economic effects were based on information fed to him by others."

You've lost me completely. An expert in economics took the predictions of the experts in climate science at face value, looked at the possible economic outcomes and commented accordingly. How could anyone say he wasn't qualified to do this? Certainly I didn't. I said I wouldn't put more weight on Garnaut's option of whether climate science is right or wrong than I would of say Professor Don Aitkin's.

But Shadow, here's an idea: rather than just taking wild pot shots, why don't you develop an informed opinion about climate science by watching a lectures series examinator posted: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

These videos cover an entire Uni subject on climate change. If you watched them closely enough, I recon you could pass the course. The subject matter isn't that difficult. Anybody comfortable with grade 12 maths and physics, and enjoys watching David Attenborough / Discovery channel type shows will love it. The only downside is it 16 hours in total. But you can watch it like cricket, with half an eye, rewinding when you realise you've missed an interesting bit.

I can't say they altered my 1000' view of climate science overly. My gut feel always was of something complex, with many interlocking systems feeding back into one another. Before watching it, I didn't have a clue how they could possibly go about analysing such a thing. The only reason I accepted it could be done is the obvious consensus among them that they had pulled it off. Watching it showed you how they broke the complex system down into manageable bits. Once you see the magical machine pulled apart into understandable components with an explanation for each, the magical moves toward the mundane.

Well it would, but no one could came from that series thinking our planet is mundane. It is a truly remarkable series of coincidences that lead to it being a planet capable of supporting life. It took my breath away.

Rstuart,

I am perfectly comfortable with the science involved, and I don't think you will find a post of mine where I claim that AGW is a fraud. However, the subtext of your argument:

"The opinions of generic scientists (ie those commenting outside of their area of expertise) are not too different to those of the general public. The more stringent you are in demanding the person knows what they are talking about, the closer to unanimous the consensus becomes."

That scientists not directly involved in AGW research are not competent to comment on global warming is very tenuous.

What is very clear is that while global warming is a fact, the results have differed from the models considerably (Re the last decade). An article in New Scientist I read about 18 months ago summed up the issues quite sucinctly: The climate model is a massive chaotic system with many known and unknown variables which have an unknown influence which vary at different points on the globe.

Ross Garnaut has known political affiliation, was commissioned by the labor party, and while basing his economic predictions on "science" the question is on whose models? His predictions implied the models had a high degree of accuracy, and allowed for little variability.

Secondly his assertion that the cost of emission reduction was less than the cost of accomodation, ignored the fact that unless the rest of the world meets the same targets the stringent emission reduction by Aus will have almost zero effect.

Finally, Aus has exceeded its Kyoto targets by so far, and with a predicted energy demand increase of 100% by 2050, drastic action is required to even keep emissions at present levels. Nuclear might be a swear word amongst the greens, but without it emission reduction is not possible.

Rstuart & Belly,
You must have been on holidays.
I saw the photos of the boat down by the bow, people in the water and
naval people in the water with them.

It was a sensible thing to do to throw the children and themselves into
the water unless you wanted to go down with the boat.

The boat not long after sank. Just a co-incidence ?

The problem is simple:

1-The worthlessness of a single-party opposition;
If representatives from ALL the parties could sit in question time, there would actually be some policy proposed- as it's purely only a binary house, yes/no for its own sake is what you will mostly get.

2- The fact that we don't actually vote for Tony Abbot- he was put into parliament by the largest minority (a couple thousand) in his local area, whose only choice was to either vote for Tony (possibly hoping at the time his vote would help Malcolm Turnbull) or not vote for Liberal. He only became leader of the party from a couple of votes in his own party.

3- The sheer idiocy of voting in a random bunch of people and letting them assign their own portfolios (and reassign them when things go bad)- regardless of how little or how unsuited for the role they are.
If we could at least vote for who would govern each ministry, there would be at least more pressure for whoever steps forward to have something credible to add to it (at least we'd actually know who would fill the role).

Personally, with politicians like these I really don't see why the public (who actually might be sincerely concerned about the issue) is somehow less qualified to decide than the mad monk.
And I daresay when both parties are waffling on about making a marketing, crediting and taxation system for hypothetically NOT-using carbon, the lunatics really ARE running the asylum!

Shadow Minister: "That scientists not directly involved in AGW research are not competent to comment on global warming is very tenuous."

No its not. Here, have a listen to Peter Doherty on climate change. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/06/26/2609568.htm (I can't find a transcript - sorry.) Doherty should meet an acceptable definition of scientist for both of us: Nobel prize winner and Laureate Professor. A little way in, he describes his experiences in reading peer reviewed published papers in subjects he isn't familiar with. Surprise, surprise - it is no different to the rest of us. He doesn't know the jargon, he isn't familiar with the concepts, he hasn't see the math used quite that way before. So you know where he says he gets his information? From lay scientific journals, such as New Scientist, Scientific American and so on. Just like you and I, as it happens.

Scientists aren't super intelligent beings. They get to where they are through unbelievable dedication in devoting decades their lives to studying one minute area. Sure in that area they are literally gods, but take them out of it and they just informed laymen, just like we plebs on OLO.

Shadow Minister: "I am perfectly comfortable with the science involved"

Fair enough.

Bazz: "I saw the photos of the boat down by the bow, people in the water and naval people in the water with them. It was a sensible thing to do to throw the children and themselves into the water unless you wanted to go down with the boat."

I used to sail and have hopped off more than a few boats. Some had capsized. I do not recall anybody throwing anything or anyone. They all stepped calmly off the boat and into the water. Since no witnesses say children where thrown, I guess the refugees must have done what the rest of us would have done in that situation, ie gently lowered their children into the water beside a waiting adult. I think you let your imagination get the better of you on occasion.

if its science it can be tested...repeated...as recording numbers arnt testing anything..its hard to say that a collection of numbers is science

yet we have these green/labourite no bodies...saying the science is in.when it clearly isnt..saying its science..yet not revealing the numbers..[which arnt science]..just numbers that observe/record..with no oversite..or public accountability..let alone media investigation..[largly they just publish the spin]

we have a ten degree of sepperation between day and night time temp..yet a two degree change means the reef is dead...a two degree change compared to the overnight /day time temp change of 10 degrees

yet you bl;ind labourite greenies cant se your being sold a new tax...a tax that allows the poluters to do what they have allways done..just pay money...via tax credits we gave them...to polute

its hard to see so many clever people sukked in./.but you want the tax thats great..it goes straight to imf..and the carbon securities traders like mr gore..who owns a carbon trading firm

the multinational banking cartel...lends your tax..to foreign nationals...building the next stage of the oindustrial evolution...using your tax..loaned at inytrest and under treasonous/ursurous terms...to do the next argentina..melt down..

when the lender obeys the conditions of the loans...and they lose their water rights ans sell off their public assets..to the so called mom and pop investers...

who largly hold less that 10 percent of any coorperation...while they largly are run by multinationals..cross holding other multinationals...mortgauged to the hilt..to the worlds bankers..and all you paid to blog bloggers can do is the two party division game

penny wrong..sure aint no scientist...did you notice the oggle she gave that chick..walking to her poluting areo plane...to fly to cop en haven..if any man did that...he would get pulled up quick smart...but thats the same reason..they sent her in to deliver the latest..two party tax/subsidy to big business excess

rstuart;
You should remember that these people had probably never seen the sea
before, or at least had no experience of small boats so they would
not necessarily react like you and me.

In any case all I saw was them in the water.
It seems likely they had retreated to the stern and jumped off from
there.
Thats what I would have done, not gone forward to the bow which might
well have been just about under.

examinator, still waiting for your nominations?

Spindoc,

sorry I don't mean to ignore you , I value your comments, or to overly emphasize my failing faculties, but what nominations? post me a thread please.

rstuart, while you recommend only considering evidence from 'climate scientists who have spent their scientific lives trying to understand and predict climate', you must include the addendum that they are totally independent of government.

here's another link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and another
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

or how about this one
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-agw.html

'100 or so' for, 31072 against!

Austin Powerless: "'100 or so' for, 31072 against!"

I presume this is your idea of a little joke.

The web page you pointed to is somebodies attempt at sarcasm. The point in case you missed it is the list of 100 scientists were not in fact scientists at all. He did that to highlight the fact while the while web page the 31072 figure came from http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html proudly claims:

31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

this is definitely a joke. It should be self evident from that statement alone.

Admittedly it wasn't originally intended to be a joke. It started out as a serious attempt by a sceptical scientist (pharmaceuticals) to demonstrate there was real scepticism among scientists toward AGW. Although the numbers took impressive at first sight (9,000 PhDs!), when you realise the USA graduates 45,000 new PhDs graduate each year it actually begins to look like the reverse. There must be something like 1,000,000 PhD's in the US, and only 9,000 disbelieve in AGW? Errrk.

So to get the numbers up the petition project started allowing "signing" via the web some time ago, and when they did that they stopped verifying the background of the people signing. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Obviously that figure of 9,000 is inflated, and the 31,486 figure is, errr, a joke?

But you got the joke, right?

All those people who do not believe in global warming, include all those who do, but say man has nothing to do with it, answer this.
Why are the leaders of 100 plus country's at this conference?
Are we to believe they are plotting against the world?,us, just planning to tax us?
What if you are wrong?
What if it is too late already.
What if China and India are heard?
They rightly, say the co2 in the air now came from industrial nations, that they have a right to develop, to continue to put their share up there.
Ludwig's population growth is going to be fixed, in a massive kill off of millions.
Sell our uranium, build nuclear power plants and see pollution drop massively, do nothing and die.

Leaders all over this planet are too blind to see as are the people who vote for them. The scientists follow the money trail made by the blind leaders & the voters. Climate, Law & Order etc is governed by that trail & as soon as some smart operator finds a way to make money out of decency all our woes will be over. Quite simple really.

examinator, just thinking that the thrust of your initial post was about who or what should be “validated” for scientific issues. I had thought that you would progress to your list of nominations.

A bit slow in responding, sorry, am traveling

Rstuart,

According to your criteria, Doherty with a Nobel prize for medicine cannot be taken seriously with regards climate change.

My position is that scientists in technically similar fields have the ability to evaluate and comment on the validity of the data available. Unfortunately, as Doherty rightly says, climate change beliefs are mostly emotionally based. This often leads smart people to "find" the results they were looking for rather than an unbiased evaluation. This also applies to the so called climate experts.

The whole purpose behind the peer review system was to precisely to have the data reviewed by someone that was not emotionally invested in the outcome. As far as climate change is concerned such a person is difficult to find.

This has lead to the proliferation of wild unsubstantiated predictions such as starvation in Aus by 2100 etc.

Shadow Minister: "The whole purpose behind the peer review system was to precisely to have the data reviewed by someone that was not emotionally invested in the outcome"

No. The whole point of the peer review system is to increase the signal to noise ratio by eliminating papers with obvious internal flaws. So it tries to ensure the content is novel, the methodology used is sound and the conclusions could reasonably follow from the information presented. That is all it tries to do. It doesn't try to guarantee the conclusions are a true representation of our world. Thus a peer reviewer is not saying he agrees with the conclusions if he allows a paper to be published. If he isn't a good peer reviewer he might be more likely to let a bad paper through if he agrees with the conclusions, just as a bad judge might be more lenient on a defendant if they share the same skin colour. But one would hope this is rare. Because of this it isn't hard to get a paper published in a some peer reviewed journal, although it might not the most prestigious one. It is not like there isn't a whole pile of these journals out there, all competing for papers.

The job of ultimately determining whether the conclusions are correct is left to another mechanism in science. Other scientists read the paper, and get small numbers of brownie points for publishing a paper re-enforcing the conclusions and a huge numbers brownie points for successfully tearing it to bits. So when the scientific wisdom is that the earth is heading into an ice age (as it was in the 1960's), and James Hansen comes along with a prediction that it is going to warm up, thus attacking the accepted wisdom he was at first a pariah (who nonetheless got his papers published), and then when his predictions ended up being correct for 20 years he was hailed as a climate science giant. His theory is now the accepted peer reviewed wisdom. Currently almost none of his peers are attacking it.

This topic was intended to highlight the idiocy of leaving our fate in the hands of the wilfully ignorant and particularly politicians or those whose motivation is based on political party dogma.

To me this issue is more important than who sit where in a debatably, dubious representative government.

As Abbott said 'he's a politician (not a scientist)" and there in lies the problem. *In this specific case*, I would suggest that the politicians should be arguing how to limit AWG, based on specialists advice. Not gamesmanship about how to get elected, by appealing to their parties 'rumps'(apt!) and second guessing the scientists.

Abbott's choices are more about status quo economics, than what is needed.
Scientifically one either has a limit to AGW or business as usual. The book that he is relying on, is *at best, potentially only a minor part of the solution*
In that area even The Labor govt. plan is in some degree, self defeating.

spindoc, how would you react as a professional code cutter, if a politician who had no coding experience and hadn't had it explained, told you that your code was wrong because he didn't make sense to him?

This is in essence what's happening here. I would challenge some of the naysayer supporters of MM to debate their *science* with those who know.

Q&A posted a credible paper discrediting Plimer's book .

As to what to believe, *I* believe the science, which is indisputable *(not necessarily the prognostications and certainly not without contextual qualification)*.

Who to believe?
There is no absolute omnipotent class of authority on this topic given it run across so many specialisations, disciplines. Notwithstanding I make the decision based on a sliding scale including:
relevance of specialisation,
experience,
capacity, scientific credibility
Is the argument supported by citations and base science
currency of expertise e.g. (15/12/ 09 only) http://www.eurekalert.org/index.php there were 20 new relevant research releases, that affect AWG science all based on the indisputable generic science on, http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html. Ask your self how current would a 10 year ago retiree be?

examinator, you ask “spindoc, how would you react as a professional code cutter, if a politician who had no coding experience and hadn't had it explained, told you that your code was wrong because he didn't make sense to him?”

If you take out the word Politician and replace it with CRU Scientist, you are absolutely spot on, that is what did happen at CRU. Other than that I don’t understand the question, what is the context?

The only question to be asked is “why are politics involved at all?”

IMHO, they are only involved for three reasons:

1. Because the UN has invoked their “precautionary principle”, which is an artificial, non scientific “threshold” at which point they deem action is required by them.(just like Acid Rain, CFC’s, DDT and AIDS, all of which they got horribly wrong)

2. Because the science is so inconclusive, that the Pollies have been forced into the scientific domain, like the rest of the public, by the UN.

and 3. Because if a wealth distribution Tax is to be imposed as payment for past emissions sins by developed nations, it will have to be administered by politics and not scientists.

The real answer to your question is that not a single unqualified person should be involved, leave it to science.

rstuart, your link http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html gives ' The page cannot be found 404 Error '. Is that your little joke?

Also, you refer to 'the webpage' that I 'pointed to is somebodies (sic) attempt at sarcasm. As I provided three seperate links, does that mean that you agree with the other two?

You went on '31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
this is definitely a joke. It should be self evident from that statement alone.' How so? Explain. There are many, many more sources with similar figures. Have a look for yourself, they are easy to find.

Realise this, if no-one opposes these proposed draconian (and unneccesary) measures, we will never be able to reverse them. Or maybe you won't mind some carbon cops coming into your house for a compulsory inspection then sending you the bill. Don't be one of the sheeple. Look for the truth.

Austin Powerless: "rstuart, your link http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html gives ' The page cannot be found 404 Error '. "

Sorry, they changed the URL. It should have been: http://www.petitionproject.org/

Austin Powerless: "Realise this, if no-one opposes these proposed draconian (and unneccesary) measures, we will never be able to reverse them."

Our pollies were happy enough to reverse other legislation, such as Work Choices. If this all turns out to be wrong there will be a fair bit of pressure to reverse it as well.

Well what about these brilliant scientists then? Wow these were the people that said we would all be starving to death because the Earth could not grow enough food by the turn of the century. Then the ice age, then nuclear war, then the ozone hole then Y2k bug.
Now what is it again and why has there been this wavering? AGW then global warming now climate change.
Rudd says the hottest ten years but others say no and now cheating in New Zealand and Canada on temperatures. Now why do I not trust some wonk in a white coat with a clipboard telling me pay up or die.
What about we halve the funds going to the climate change scientists so at least half of them are doing a real days work?
This silly Copenhagen conference has used as much carbon as most African countries, give me a break!

Foxy, “What do they read? (Or do they read at all?) How can their ignorance be explained?”

I don’t think it’s ignorance, they get caught up in party lines and ideology. You may well ask what they read? They read all the stuff we read, and they have access to all the “stuff” that is going on over Climategate. Because most of the media has censored much of the news the Pollies are not (yet) answerable to the electorate and can bluster on.

Like I said to examinator, this debate has been forced into the public and political domain because it ‘aint science, never has been.

rstuart, you say “Our pollies were happy enough to reverse other legislation, such as Work Choices.” Not so, Work Choices is Australian legislation, we can change it. A binding International Treaty to reduce carbon emissions and collect Tax for the UN is not that simple and will involve both penalties and punitive trade ramifications that the Australian Tax payer will have to fund

Dear spindoc,

You're right of-course - it is party lines
and ideology.

Actually I'm somewhat embarrassed by that particular
post of mine. (Blonde moment).

spindoc: "Not so, Work Choices is Australian legislation, we can change it. A binding International Treaty to reduce carbon emissions and collect Tax for the UN"

Have you got a link to support this claim? Because it sounds like absolute unabridged rubbish.

Collect tax for the UN? You have gotta be kidding me. Tie us into international agreements we can't withdraw from with a due notice? That would be a first.

Methinks you have gone beyond your name now. You ain't just spinning.

rstuart I know it's Wikipedia but the page on Kyoto gives a couple of examples which seem similar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

"Financial commitments

The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in UNFCCC."

"Enforcement

If the enforcement branch determines that an annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.[17]"

I've not verified those claims nor have a I seen serious rebuttal of the claims.

R0bert

Thank you R0bert for shining the laser beam of reality into the very small dark hole represnted by rstuart. I really couldn't be bothered with any more lost causes created by people who are simply to affraid to look for themselves.

“Why do we tolerate our politicians deciding on critical *scientific* issues without even seeking appropriate, objective advice from scientific experts in the relevant field.”

This is a late offering and I hope I am not repeating something which others might have already stated

That is simple to answer

Because, in a democracy, we elect representatives to reflect the view of the entire community, not just a professional specialty within it

Hence ordinary MPs, of all sorts of background, vote on matters which enact statute concerning

Health – but they may not be doctors
Education – but they may not be teachers
Taxation – but they may not be tax agents
Defense – but they are not soldiers

The point is, in a democracy, we tolerate an imperfect system which is not necessarily the most efficient nor the most “scientifically” objective.

If we wanted “efficient objectivity”, we would do better with some sort of techno-autocracy but it tends to lack that essential “democratic representation”.

Some would say the “collectivist” model, where all the resources are meticulously planned and administered by the state and all are supported “according to their needs” is the most “efficient” and “objective” but history is littered with the disasters of socialist / communist, / collectivist of every flavor and by every name, including the Israeli kibbutz system.

So as Churchill said

(multi-party) "Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting every other system ever attempted."

Including “single party" systems

quote..col red..<<in a democracy,..we elect representatives to reflect the view of the entire community,..not just a professional specialty within it..>>oh come on col...how come over 50 percent of elected are/were lawyers...lol

<<Hence ordinary MPs,>>>lol<<from of all sorts of background>>.lol,

<<vote on matters..which enact statute concerning

Health/may not be doctors
Education/may not be teachers
Taxation/not be tax agents
Defense/not soldiers>>>..even though the majority..are lawyers..

should the/coluding elites...make the law..and then allow/their peers to judge..the laws...should be the real question/point

see that lawyers..formed govt...made govt that makes acts...to give...those under the act..powers and benifits...as well as duties[under/the act]

the constitution..out-lines..the bounds/of those..they can put under act...and that is limited to those...seeking..the benifits..of the powers..under the act

see no lawyer/is going to tell you...that acts...only apply..if your doing commerce..or seeking advantage..or licence...UNDER THE ACT..

that we are subjected..to the acts..because we applied..[apply means beg]..because we applied..[sic]... to fall/under the act

the question..is really put wrong...

should an elite lawyer club..thrust laws..upon those not fully and of informed concent...entraped into/under the act?

if your not getting the advantage/licence..UNDER THE ACT..your not subject to the act...the lie began when we registerd our birth..under the births/marages act...see only slaves /property needs be registerd under the act

but i guess the ignorant of the law..
just accept they..fall under the act...
designed just so the servants..of the law society...can do as they chose...hidding their fraud under hundreds of pages of gobbildy cook..then ruled/judged over by their peers

its a legal cartel...its not lawfull.

.but even cops NEVER got told..any different..

they are 'only' doing their job...or the law bites...[eats]..them...

ignorance of the law is no excuse..
because you applied/begged...to fall under THEIR act
thus they do as they please...

know you surtrender your rights by appointing govt[voting]..your vote gives them defactgo 'powers'...making you legally..a ward of the state...as such you are under their complete control...yet its all only an act

see the king gave,..
control over the estates of idiots and luniatics...

read the origonal orders..to phylip...
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw2_doc_1787.pdf

..by registering/birth..deaths/vehicles...by applying for licence...you became one./

..yet no lawyer..will explain that..to you

R0bert: "rstuart I know it's Wikipedia but ..."

Cruel words R0bert. I happen to think Wikipedia is about the only mechanism that comes remotely close to describing what the planet wide consensus on what the "truth" is on just about any given topic. I gave up trying to find fault with it years ago.

R0bert: "Kyoto gives a couple of examples which seem similar ... The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects"

But, it is just a principle. The only concrete implementation I could find in the Wikipedia article is: "In practice this means that non-Annex I countries have no GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to Annex I countries, encouraging sustainable development."

In other words: if we met our targets, we don't have to pay anyone anything. Alternatively we can keep emitting and bride bribe poorer countries to take the pain for us by reducing their emissions. It seems rather clever actually.

It is actually clever than it first appears, because the assuming we put some emissions reduction scheme in place, Australian Government (and hence the tax payer) will not paying anybody anything. The only "paying" that can occur is if some Australian business decides it is cheaper to purchase emission credits overseas than either reducing their emissions or purchasing the credits locally. Thus Spindoc's is effectively saying allowing Australian firms to purchase emission credits on the world market is allowing the UN to tax us. Obviously this is absurd.

And equally obviously, to say any sovereign country could not withdraw from the treaty is also absurd. The country would naturally be expected to honour any debts incured while they were signatories. But after the ramifications would be no different to not signing it in the first place. The effect would be pretty much the same. It would piss a lot of countries off.

the simple fact is wars end when..LEADERS..sign the peace treaty

DONT PRATTLE ON ABOUT TREATIES..NOT BEING BINDING...they clearly are punitive...your with us..or we put tarrifs on your products

THERE IS THE PROBLEM..product...

china's emmisions are rising...BECAUSE you global warning/nutters want your wind mills/solar cells ON YA ROOFS..

because..YOU want your energy efficient...new machines....
meaning we need to burn MORE fossil energy TO BUILD THEM

you need to wake up..you lot are the problem...think zero enmissions is about STOPPING,,your building of new product..

ie industry needs to shut down globally...not get into high gear building new stuff..mining new material...more polutive industry

we..[if you insane carbon/armogedon/end time nutters are correct..
need to take a long industrial/holiday...re use..not re cycle...need to ban cars/industry.. all together...

make every car die...use what we have..

not create a speck more of carbon...by gearing up NEW/industry..and even then carbon will/still.. keep building up for 100 years...due to the storage of co2..in the deep polar currents

what is the carbon debt..of indsustry?..
how much EXTRA polution ..do your solar cells/windmills..etc cause

if the issue IS SO IMPORTANT..why has bbc..just gone from the live/debate..and is currently reading the soccar scores...

why is no one else covering this supposedly urgent debate...im hearing football scores...get it..yes bbc knows/what more important

now abc is on the new aussie saint..THATS SO much more important that caRBON...lol..just ask the abc/bbc...

shut down industry...completly..if your serious...

and get rid of the govt media propaganda media..they arnt serving us..but to distract..decieve and enter-taint

rstuart, I’m not really sure how you avoid reality. The immense volume of documentation emitted by Copenhagen contains volumes of information about the UN scheme to raise and distribute Carbon Taxes to fund developing nations. Yet you still insist this is absurd.

Let me give you an example of how this works.

The Indian industrial giant Tata acquired the Dutch company Corus, who owned parts of the former British Steel industry. Tata has announced the closure of their Redcar steel mill in the UK at a cost of 1,700 jobs.

Corus in the Netherlands is expanding their production with 20m Euros of investment, 15m Euros from the EU and 5m Euros from the Dutch government. No compensation can be paid by the UK government to the Redcar plant or their employees because this is not allowed under state-aid-rules by the EU.
Corus’s real gain from stopping production at Redcar, however, is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission projections, be worth up to £600 million over the three years before current allocations expire. Where on earth do you think this £600 million comes from but carbon taxes?
It just happens that Dr Pachauri's other main job, apart from being chairman of the IPCC, is as director-general of the Tata Energy Research Institute, funded by Tata, which he has run since 1981.
The AGW phenomena shares identical analogies with some 26 other previous “Forecasts of impending catastrophe”, 19 of these forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred)

As phenomena, it will dissipate over time yet governments as an act of self preservation will continue to make disastrous policy decisions that future generation will curse them for.
What of the “warmers? They too will dissipate.

spindoc: "The immense volume of documentation emitted by Copenhagen contains volumes of information about the UN scheme to raise and distribute Carbon Taxes to fund developing nations."

You have read it? I am impressed. Can you provide a link? My understanding of what happened at Copenhagen was a bit different. I thought it was a non event, primarily because the biggest emitter of them all, the US with 40% of total, has so far refused to sign onto to kyoto protocol. What country is going to commit themselves to the cost of reducing GHG emissions while letting the biggest and richest emitter of all get a free ride?

spindoc: "Where on earth do you think this £600 million comes from but carbon taxes?"

Whoever pays for them. I can't tell you who that is, because according to your story the emission credits haven't been sold yet. The European government hasn't sold any carbon credits so far, so it can't possibly be called a "tax".

That aside, it an interesting story spindoc, but I am not sure what is shows. It is evidence the emission trading scheme is actually making the economy adjust perhaps?

spindoc: "As phenomena, it will dissipate over time yet governments as an act of self preservation will continue to make disastrous policy decisions that future generation will curse them for. What of the “warmers? They too will dissipate."

This is your vision for the future? It looks pretty black to me, but we all have different ones I guess.

It seems that some of the posters are a little bit behind the times:

“My understanding of what happened at Copenhagen was a bit different. I thought it was a non event, primarily because the biggest emitter of them all, the US with 40% of total, has so far refused to sign onto to kyoto protocol. What country is going to commit themselves to the cost of reducing GHG emissions while letting the biggest and richest emitter of all get a free ride?”
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 20 December 2009 6:51:13 PM

The biggest emitter by reliable accounts is now China.

“The United States, the number two emitter behind China…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLH602416

It's now official: China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0628/p12s01-wogi.html

UOG I am not sure if you agree, disagree are repeating, adding, contradicting or simply rearranging what I wrote.

If you wish to make comment try doing so an a reasonably lucid manner because

What you have written as a response, whilst not illegible does verge on the unintelligible ,

As for the general standing of AGW, well as a “scientific issue” history is littered with not just the rewards of good science but the wrecks of bad science.

DDT
good for controlling malaria carrying mosquitos
Bad for bald eagles

Thalidomide
Good for controlling morning sickness
Bad for babies who hold an expectation to be born with two arms and two legs

The difference between AGW , DDT and Thalidomide is

We are still at the determination stage with AGW.. whether it is real or just a made up bunch of bull-dust.

We have not implemented an ETS (hey Kruddy – a new indirect tax, real vote winner) yet, so the issues are still theory and no practical damage has been done

Enough people are now opposing the stupidity of this exercise in
Socialism by Stealth

That we might see a worst disaster of thalidomide averted

Because as far as anyones “quality of Life” is concerned

A ETS is akin to having one of your “earning arms” cut off at the elbow

Ie – work harder to pay more tax and go backwards

For what?

A theory, which remains UNPROVEN and discredited by previous fraudulent claims of its proponents

rstuart, I’m sorry, I can’t help you more. It is not my “story” or my “vision”. Sadly it is a real life situation and it is happening to 1,700 poor sods that used to have a job as a direct result of “current carbon allocations”.

If you wish to be a little more informed, do your own homework and read the news for yourself.

I don’t know if you are just plain lazy, incompetent or you are just terrified to look in case you see something that will shatter your illusions. There is a whole world of things going on out there of which you seem to know very little. With today’s communications technology there is simply no excuse for ignorance or your belligerence.