Dear Anthonyve,

As economist Prof. Tor Hundloe has pointed out in
the past:

"On issues which require radical solutions that are
likely to harm vested economic and political interests,
much won't change - especially when ignorance and
vested interests are confronted by scientific facts."

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot,
will continue to be threats to those who are comfortable in
their idealogies.

It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present
era to get the public and the government we elect, to act
on the toxic, life-taking effects of tobacco. Eventually
sanity prevailed, although it took decades.

It is clearly time that we take the implications of
climate change seriously. We should pay attention to
leading climatologists and our country's pre-eminent
public research organisation, CSIRO. Our science is
first class. It is not corrupt. However to some people
I guess none of that matters. They have understandable
risk aversion. They might not be around
to benefit from a good time in the future - so they feel
that - lets have it now regardless of the long-term
consequences.

Hi Lexi,
You're right; and the quote is really apropo.
I guess, I'm impatient to see these knuckleheads get out of the way so we can take serious remedial action.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Ant,

That AGW is occurring is no secret, and I was wondering whether your post had any point.

If it is to spruik the carbon tax, perhaps you could enlighten us to why it will make any difference.

Shad,
The facts of the reality of AGW seem to be, well if not a secret, at least a complete surprise to some OLOers.
As to the wisdom of the Carbon Tax, that is even less of a secret that the reality of AGW.
I would've thought you would have known that.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hasbeen wrote:

>>Hay Anthony, is that anything like the new hockey stick paper by Gergis? The one that cost $300,000 in grant money to produce, the one that had so many faults shown up by privateers, that it has had to be withdrawn just 3 weeks after seeing the light of day?>>

The operative word here is "withdrawn."

It was found to be flawed and it was withdrawn.

Which is as it should be.

It's the way science works. When a paper is found to be flawed it is withdrawn.

It would not be the first piece of sloppy research to be published and it certainly won't be the last. But, as with all sloppy research, its flaws were discovered and it was withdrawn.

Now compare that to Ian Plimer's compendium of lies, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/1589794729/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339498386&sr=1-1&keywords=ian+plimer

That's not just sloppy. That's outright fraud. Its numerous inaccuracies have been documented by both privateers such as myself and professional scientists.

Has it been withdrawn?

As you can see if you follow the link above, it has not.

And that is the difference between real science and pseudo-science. When a real scientific paper or book is seen to be flawed it is withdrawn.

When a pseudo-scientific paper or book is seen to be flawed (which in Plimer's case is putting it kindly) it is kept in circulation and the true believers make excuses.

So an Australian professor at a "respectable" university retails porkies and keeps his job.

Come on Steven, the whole ocean temperature thing is another concoction. All they have done is review a heap of MODLES. There is not a fact with in cooee of the whole bit of rubbish.

Reminds me of the ABM "modified" temperature record for Darwin. No change in 40 years of thermometer readings, but they somehow FOUND a correction that suddenly made the place 2 degrees hotter. May be it was a small step for a man, but a giant leap for Darwin's temperature.

How can reasonably intelligent people keep falling for this con.

Steven we keep hearing about how good this peer reviewed "science" is. Would you like to explain how this new hockey stick crap got through this much heralded review process, & actually managed to be included in the IPCC new draft without anyone in the trade finding any of a dozen flaws in the thing. After their attempt to melt all the Himalayan glaciers, & kill off the Amazon rain forests, in their last report, you, or at least I, would expect them to be a bit more careful these days.

Why is it up to someone acting privately, unfunded, to find our $300,000 was thrown away on crap? If these people take 3 years to get it so wrong, no wonder Anthony & you have to stick up for them.

Do you think that after taking the $300,000 grant, she felt she had to give Gillare something she could use?

When will these people start to wake up to the fact that the old records are held all over the place these days. Each time they "correct" some of the old stuff, it hits the blog space, & just a few more wake up, & get annoyed at being taken for a fool.

Tell me mate, when it snows on Castle Hill, are you going to stop being their fool, & admit global warming has stopped, or will it take Townsville harbour frozen solid first.