Climate sceptics versus spin versus science
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Friday 13th November 2009, 3:19pm
by ChristineMilne in
The media storm over climate sceptics in the Coalition, triggered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Lowy Institute speech last Friday and the ABC's Four Corners program on Monday night, is bringing much needed rain for a government whose climate credentials were looking very dry.
It has very effectively framed the debate in the Government's superficial way - the choice between action and inaction - and, in so doing, allowed the Government to again escape scrutiny at a crucial moment here in Australia.
I say here in Australia because the Rudd Government is not escaping scrutiny on the global stage, where its woefully weak targets and obstructive negotiating stance are coming in for some serious and sustained criticism.
The Climate Action Tracker website, a highly credible joint effort of Ecofys, Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research, has labelled Australia's position "inadequate" and the Climate Action Network International has called the conditions Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong put on lifting their target to the still weak 25 per cent level "obnoxious".
Most telling, and most high-profile internationally, the entire team of negotiators from the developing world, led by the African delegation, walked out of pre-Copenhagen negotiations in Barcelona last week for 24 hours in protest against the refusal by rich nations to commit to scientifically credible targets of 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. Although it received almost no attention in Australia, the walkout was from a meeting chaired by Australian delegates and Kevin Rudd was singled out in a post-walkout press conference.
Sudanese delegate and lead negotiator for the G77 plus China, Lumumba Di-Aping, focused his press conference on the hypocrisy of the rich nations at climate talks, asking the assembled media to "tell me of any politician who delivered on his political manifesto. Is it Gordon Brown? Is it Kevin Rudd?"
The African position exposes the Rudd Government's "action versus inaction" frame for the triumph of spin over substance that it is. That frame assumes that any action is sufficient in the face of the climate crisis when the most basic science tells us that that is not the case. If we take action in line with the Rudd Government's CPRS (what I call the Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme), for instance, we will trigger tipping points in the climate just as surely as if we do nothing at all. Action isn't enough - we must do what the science tells us is necessary.
On that question, I was fascinated to hear what Rudd had to say last week in expanding the definition of climate sceptics to include those who pay lip service to the science while either blocking any action or saying we must wait for the rest of the world to act before doing anything ourselves. As far as he goes, he is absolutely right.
But he left out the fourth kind of climate sceptic - the most dangerous and insidious sceptics of all - those who claim to take the science seriously, who stake out the moral high ground, and yet whose actions utterly fail to match their words. Rudd and Wong fit fairly and squarely into that category.
What does it say that, for all their fierce rhetorical battles, the actual policy prescriptions of the Rudd Government are barely different from those of the Howard government or the Turnbull Opposition? The design of the CPRS mirrors the emissions trading scheme designed by Peter Shergold for the Howard government in 2007 in its allocation of free permits to polluters at the expense of the community.
In many ways, the CPRS is actually worse - for instance the Shergold design would not have insulated transport from the scheme by offsetting the carbon price cent for cent with a cut in fuel excise as the Rudd plan does. And, for all the talk of climate scepticism, the Opposition has signed up for exactly the same targets that the Rudd Government has nominated. Their proposed amendments barely shift the goal posts on the scheme, simply sandbagging polluters marginally more.
While the media may choose to ignore what a serious response to the climate crisis looks like - the Greens' Safe Climate Bill - there is no excuse for the failure of serious analysis and commentary on whether the Rudd Government's actions match their rhetoric, let alone the science.
It is no exaggeration to say that the decisions being made in Australia and around the world in coming weeks will shape every aspect of the world that we will all grow old in. We cannot allow those decisions to be ruled by spin any more than we can defer to scepticism. Now is the time for science and substance.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
I have voted for the greens
I have voted for the greens in the senate for years but your current denial of the new science on climate change (i.e. it's BS) means I won't be voting for you anymore.
It's BS?
Care to link to some peer-reviewed articles by actual climate scientists which show that it's BS? Philosophical essays by scientists with no expertise in climatology from the University of East Buttcrack don't count.
BS
Thats right Sam. We at the greens only belive in the science when it says what we want it to. Don't worry that the science is completely bassed on "Models" that have NEVER been able to predict our "climate" even 5 years ahead. Thats right not one of these model has shown to be reliable at all, but we will run with it for prediction into the next century anyway. But this isn't about the climate at all is it. Its the new age socialism. Take from the rich, give to the poor. If we at the greens have our way, ultimately humans and the environment don't mix. What do we choose? The answer is chillingly clear.
Greens ignore climate science
Report says Greenpeace ignores climate science at the expense of world poverty. Mates of yours Bob?
http://www.worldgrowth.org/assets/files/WG_Greenpeace_Paper_11_09(1).pdf
Oh how lovely. The tampering
Oh how lovely. The tampering of data and dishonesty of the Climate Change brigade is coming unravelled with the whistleblower release of CRU emails and data.
I feel so vindicated. Time to find a new cause Greenies.
Reduce Immigration, or Have A small Emission Reduction Target
Agreed that the Australian reduction levels are low, but are people prepared to dramatically reduce immigration, refugees and illegal migration to maintain our current population levels. You cannot have it both ways, huge population growth and reduced emission levels.
The Federal Government has advised that Australia will increase its population by 60% over the next 40 years (30% / 20 years), and with that population growth, we not only have no hope in reducing emissions below 2000 levels, but we will not be able to reduce below today’s levels.
Remember that the millions of new additions to the Australian population will need millions of additional homes (thousands of new suburbs), tens of millions of fridges, washing machines, heaters, aircons, home lighting, etc, etc, etc. In addition, we put around 800k new vehicles on the road each year (in hard economic times), but with the additional millions of population, we can expect many, many million new vehicles on our roads as well over the next 20 years. Generally in most capital cities, you can forget about huge increases in public transport, as there is very limited corridors through older suburbs, so homes would need to be demolished, and new suburbs created for residents to move too. ie. more emissions.
Sure critise the Government for their low levels of emission reductions, but all (especially the Greens) need to push the Government to dramatically reduce our population growth, else we can start saving to pay the projected huge fines that we will have to pay from our taxes for not meeting some arbitrary emission reduction targets that will never be met.
Denying natural variation to prove it's all natural variation
It's disappointing to read such nonsensical points as put by Brad; Climate includes a lot of natural variation and expections of models lining up with temperature graphs at the 5 year level is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresention of what's known about climate and what models do. Averages of many models and many model runs reveal and predict underlying trends over the longer term whilst retaining a lot of variability on a year to year (or 5 year to 5 year) basis. As they should.
Natural variations that work over years and decades overlay a long term trend of more heat being retained within our climate system. Picking the downs of the natural ups and downs and failing to notice a longer term trend of more up than down only proves a lack of understanding of climate and climate science; that or reveals a deliberate attempt to decieve. Average Surface Air Temperatures have shown much greater "cooling" before and bounced back to give us unprecedented highs; Brad fails to show any cause to believe we won't see that again. It's certain that the world's leading scientific organisations expect we will see that warming trend continue. No question which I consider the most reliable sources on this.
The most recent decade has given us 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record (GISS - which includes the rapidly warming Arctic that others leave out). The highest sea levels on record and rising (CSIRO using tide guage and satellite data). Rapidly increasing melt of Greenland and Antarctic icesheets - so much increase in the melt rate that it's almost certain one crucial tipping point has been passed (GRACE and ICESAT satellite data). The lowest summer arctic sea ice extent on record (NSIDC). The highest ocean heat content on record (University of Colorado). There's more like that, from leading scientific institutions.
No alternatives for causation have survived scientific (ie true sceptical) analysis. In other words AGW is as true as best scientific inquiry can reveal. This issue is not going to go away.
I will be voting Green because they are currently the only party that appears treat this issue with the true seriousness it deserves. That I think new generation nuclear should be seriously considered as part of our energy future won't change that - I earnestly hope that the storage and distribution limitations of renewables can be overcome and renewables win out but suspect our energy sector's entrenched denial of the problem and it's antipathy to committing to the necessary groundwork on renewables will mean replacing coal plants with nuclear ones will be a hard choice to resist. Come on someone - start making cheap, reliable energy storage. Quickly!
Who's in denial?
Im very sorry that you are dissapointed Ken, however even you poster boy Flammery has has to admit that
"We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend. "
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen...
You have chosen a timeset that suits your trend, take it back a few hundred years, and the "trend" is certainly not warming.
Even your CRU data has shown to be corrupted falsified and manipulated. Thanks to the whistleblower, It's all unravelling now.
Ken, I think you ought to
Ken,
I think you ought to read professor Plimer's book "heaven and earth - Global warming:The missing science". The IPCC report based on Mann's et al work is greatly flawed and if we are basing our imperatives on his work, we will be lost. McIntyre showed the work was flawed and that has been corroberated by the UN but they still trot out this deceiving "hockey stick". Have a look at the evidence - the "hocket stick" has left out the "Roman warming" and the "medieval warming" when temperatures were up to 6 degrees warmer, when Greenland had orchards and vineyards. That proves that warming is not caused by industry generating CO2. look at Al Gore's graphs and superimpose them. It will show carbon dioxide ahead of temperature - so CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature but the other way round. How hypocritical.
But what is the real agenda - its about a loss of sovereignty. The Copenhagen agreement will bing developed nations to this UN body and they will have control of our economics etc. Read the fine print. And why should we give money to developing nations like India and China when we have no real impact in terms of CO2 emissions.
Anyway, most of the world's carbon dioxide is in the oceans, not in the atmosphere.
Henk, I think you ought to check out Prof. Plimmer
Take a look into the background of the learned professor and you will find that in this area he is not that learned at all; viz no qualifications in climate and related science whatsoever. But don't stop there, check out his connections with the mining industry and you will find that he has several directorships, and that is just for starters. And we mustn't forget his politics, check out his connections with the Institute of Public Affairs. And what is his theory, some new revelation? No, just a regurgitation of a lot of stuff that has been around for years and that has been well and truly discredited. I could go on but Australia has some of the most draconian libel laws in the developed world and our Prof has a bit of a reputation as a litigant.
Re: Ken Fabos
Ken, its happening. Check out Better Place. They offer a model of managed Electric Vehicle storage that will enable wind to provide 40% or more of our energy requirements. The amazing thing is their approach will actually make driving cars cheaper while at the same time set us up to slash emissions. So much for Grant and his blind insistence that emissions reductions must destroy our way of life.
Re Re Ken Fabos
Actually Jim, I do not believe that emission reductions will destroy our way of life. I have been reducing our family footprint for a number of years through basic progressive change, but not only for the environment, but probably, if I think about it, for economic reasons. Basic changes such as:
a. Replacing all electrical appliances when required by units with better consumpt consumption ratings.
b. Installing a water tank to reduce town water usage
c. Energy efficient light bulbs through the house
d. Down sized 2 family cars (including a late model Falcon), to a mid-sized diesel car
e. Installed small aircon in bedroom to avoid having to use large home aircon on hot summer nights
f. Turning off power points when appliances are not in use
There is probably a dozen other ways that we have reduced energy consumption (eg. changed cooking from oven to hot plate or microwave cooking etc, etc).
I do however believe that trying to implement rapid change will result in increased unemployment as business moves offshore (it is already happening), and the need for Governments to subsidise energy costs within the community. Obviously the result will be increased taxation in some form or another (eg, selling carbon credits to business who will need to increase costs of their goods and services)
What I have been trying to point out are a few basic facts with emission reductions:
1. At a Government level, emission reductions need to be a planned / phased project.
2. Reduction targets must be achievable.
3. Objective time lines for project phases must be documented, and the time lines need to be also achieveable.
4. A budget must be set aside by the Government to achieve targets, not just wave around a big stick with penalities on businesses, as business will just pass additional costs to consumers
5. All stakeholders must agree with:
a. Need for project
b. Deliverables / objectives
c. Time lines.
d. Costs involved
The last point (5. All stakeholders must agree) is critical. If stakeholders (electors, through business to the farming communities) do not agree, then no planned targets will be achieved, only much pain, and probably the Government dismissed at the following election, to an opportunistic Government promising to return to the status quo.
The Copenhagen conference in early December should be quite interesting, although during an interview on TV Sun 22/11, the Danish Environment Minister believes that all will agree that action needs to be taken, and all will possibly agree on emission reduction ranges, however it will not be possible to have penalties for those countries who do not meet their stated targets (as she pointed out, who is going to be able to hold a big stick over the heads of Europe, US, Australia, China, India etc., it is just not possible).
In relation to EVs, I agree they are the way to go for inner city short distance transport, however I cannot see in the next 20 years that EVs could be used for country or interstate travel. The main disadvantages for the next "x" years are their purchase price, range and refueling (except in inner city usage). Having said this, maybe there is a Henry Ford out their somewhere, that will develop, build, and market a practical EV for a sub $20k price tag. ie. a modern day T Model. My own belief is that Hybrids, Natural Gas, and Hydrogen will be the immediate successor to the current personal cars, with EVs slowly competing as technology advances, and cost decreases (as it will, and has been shown with the IC vehicles - hopefully without a major war to act as a catalyst) and gas powered diesels for heavy trucks (hybrid for small trucks). I don't see the role of the family car being taken over by trains, trams or buses as this change would need a total replaning, and probably rebuilding of suburbs. Wheather we like it or not, our society has developed around shopping centres, and families where both the wife and husband work, so shopping needs to be done efficiently in single locations, not in many little corners stores, such as was the case, say in the 1950'.
Anyway interesting times are ahead, and I am sure that I would not like to be a politician, as a small step in the wrong direction, that hurts too many people will spell political suicide, and a change in Government will only cause delays / reversals in emission reductions.
RE: Grant
Hi Grant
One of your central arguments seems to be that it is politically impossible to introduce a sweeping reform that electors widely believe will see them worse off. And even if by some miracle such a reform is introduced then the government (that brought it in) will be immediately voted out and the legislation reversed at the next electoral cycle.
So how then did we get the GST, why did John Howard last so long afterwards and why is the GST still there?
At the time and immediately afterwards large numbers of people certainly believed very strongly that it would make them worse off, but these days it simply isn't on the agenda.
Introducing a carbon price has far greater grass roots support than the GST ever did. There are over a million (and rapidly increasing numbers of) Greenpower users and there is no argument that these people are all financially worse off than if they didn't buy Greenpower. There would be vastly more Greenpower users (without complaint) if it were an opt out system. What is even more amazing is that all these people are paying 2 to 5 times the real price of the RECS that directly underly Greenpower.
This means that if the outlandish middle man profit was regulated to a sensible level then at current spending Greenpower buyers will soon rival the MRET in absorbing RECS. That by itself would be enough to make massive reductions by 2020 because Greenpower matching of MRET implies 40% of our energy is renewable.
The fact is people will actively set about to do something they believe in even if it costs them. Even more people will go along with it if legislated. Perhaps the most pressing political advantage that a carbon price has over the GST is that a carbon price is a form of indulgence (i.e. the medieval kind) paid for our lifestyle.
Some people won't like it, and even fewer will make a fuss, but then thats true of almost everything and laws are passed just the same.
Your argument that it is politically impossible to enact a carbon price signal is just so very unconvincing.
Endorsing the ETS
As a Greens voter in the past, I expect the Greens Parliamentarians to fight as hard as they can for the environment, using the best information they have (not emotion) to get the best deal possible. But when it comes to the vote, I fervently hope that they will support the only legislation that is on the table. Yes, it is not as much as we hoped. But I believe that it is a genuine attempt to get the ball rolling and despite its limitations, it is a circuit breaker. Contributing to its failure will be supporting the Nationals and the high-powered lobbyists you decry. No-one will pay attention to your reasons for rejecting it - no matter how legitimate and rational they might be. It will simply be back to square one. Sadly, I really doubt that if the issue goes to the Australian people, the outcome will be better. You will have less chance of having your voice heard over the nay-sayers - and we will go back years in the debate.
I don't envy the government's job in steering through such radical change of thinking in a sceptical and threatened environment, with big players who are used to splashing money around to get their own way. Yes - I know that the threat to our survival - or at least our way of life - is significant. And I doubt that many of the downstream policy implications have been envisaged. Nevertheless, we must get something going. The Greens role in shaping the implementation will be invaluable. But best to be in the tent and positively contributing than waiting for the next opportunity which may be even more flawed than you wish.
This legislation of course is important regarding industry - but the main event is to change the behaviours and expectations of the population through well marketed and communicated information that shows them how and why they need to change. Brisbane's citizen response to the water crisis shows it is possible.
.
Get the ball rolling Marion
Your right Marion. I cant understand why the Greens wont support the CPRS. As you say - its a very positive step in the right direction. The reality at Copenhagen is that Australia will be pushed to commit to 25% reductions by 2020. It is unlikely that Australia will have to act unilaterally and put in place the 5% target. Australia is not like Europe and Asia who rely on us for fossil fuels and minerals. 25% 2020 target is huge for us and means a lot more than 40% targets in other developed economies.
To identify CPRS collateral damage
Surely it's now time to talk about particular operators, who need to fall away, to enable CPRS, to see some actual risk management? With GFC, people appointed as our leaders got way with saying "we couldn't see it coming". Of course, key players were drunker than schoolies, making so much money, that risk management was sequestered, far enough away to be invisible.
This is to propose shutdown of the Portland Aluminium smelter. Even ABARE says aluminium smelting should be phased out in Australia. As well as cheap, our power split for aluminium is dirty, 70/30 between fossil fuel and renewables, compared with rest of world at 30/70.
Aluminium requires so much power that it's known as "congealed electricity". Rate to Portland(until 2014) for electricity is close to $0.02 per kWhr, 30% of rate for any other large industrial user. CO2 CRC says $0.03 to 0.035 is cost of generation. Even Mr Brumby, with his beloved Desal Plant, in writing, doesn't offer himself better than $0.065 per kWhr.
Victorian smelters produce 550,000 tones per year. Each tonne requires 15MWhr electricity(plus long transmission losses all the way acroos the State). At $0.02 per kWhr, they pay $300.00 for this. Compared with other users paying 70% more, they're subsidised $600.00. To justify any investment in new power station projects, price for viability needs to be more than $0.10, more again for anything "clean power". At this rate, to allow aluminium smelting to continue, on present $0.02 terms, subsidy by other users would be $1200 per tonne or, for 550,000 tonnes, $660M. This is per year, cost of subsidy! And it's before accounting for cost of carbon.
So,the rest of us have had to pay, much more than it's worth, to export aluminium. 80% of output is export, no value added. It's for benefit of 80% foreign ownership, which is an international cartel of just 5 or 6 companies. We’ve been exporting money, at least $660M, per year!!
So how about aluminium smelters don’t get any free carbon permits, so they really can spit the dummy and take their business offshore? World market price now for raw aluminium is USD1900/tonne or so. Not so long ago it was more than USD3000.They've certainly gouged plenty from Australia and export customers already. Surely they should fade away quietly?
News recently is that Portland Smelter workforce is just 600 people. This industry has no potential for improved productivity. Modest investment incentives can surely provide more meaningful employment. Portland is a deep water port. It's half way between Melbourne and Adelaide. It surely needs to grow and can even attract people away from Melbourne's ugly, never ending, sprawling growth. Just for one example, it could become the site for( already heavily taxpayer subsidised) new 4 cylinder car engine plant by Holden.
More than anything, shutting down aluminium smelting in Victoria can reduce electricity demand, such that a power station, as shamefully dirty as Hazelwood, can finally be shut down. The cost of this should not be high. It was privatised in 2003, for a price of $2.3B, reflecting short life expectancy and carbon crunch. In 2003 alone, Hazelwood generated 12,000GWhr. At margin of, say, $0.05 per kWhr, this means gross profit of $600M, or 25% return on investment, in just one year. Cost of original investment is well and truly recovered by now so, surely, these losers should also go quietly.
Obsession with Economy means big business buys big mind share, to brain wash so many people that their way is the only way. It's time for serious risk management, before it's too late. Time for our politicians to get specific about exactly which industries are too much of a risk, especially the ones that export money out of our Economy. If big time export of money is allowed to continue, surely, we end up a third world Economy? Account for carbon, stop the big money exporters, and be actually better off!
Re: Smelters
Well said Bernie. Right on target! Have you read Scorcher by Clive Hamilton by any chance?
EST
Hi - have supported greens for over 10 years - have always been happy with the choice not to be blind sided by staunch Labour & liberal parents and family in my up bringing, more interested in policy and truth, environment and peace. after recieving the email presentation on EST from climatesceptics.com, reviewing their website and sources, speaking with them, checking into whatsupwiththat.com, reading the Australian page 11 today, there is no doubt the EST is all about politics, tax and money.
If the Greens wish to use and support EST as a vehicle to aquire their needs - then i see it as outright dishonesty. if the climate sceptics, Australian newspaper hacker emails, whatsupwith that, information is rubbish then you should find no problems in provifiding me with simple clear explanations that disporove all of the statments in these bodys
DONT END UP TRADING YOUR MORALS, HONESTY, INTEGRITY in for POLITICAL POWER
Please dont underestimate the voters
DAVE
Gee it's amazing how
Gee it's amazing how incredibly (intentionally?) stupid and apparently transparent the trollers have become on this topic.
Today they seem to be going particularly bonkers.
Denialist meltdown, lol.
Amazing they comprehend enough written text to get past the bot filter.
Using terms that are
Using terms that are deliberately aimed at linking climate realists to holocaust deniers is quite putrid, and tends to diminish your arguements.
Typical socialist/communist game plan. The end justifies the means hey?
The screams are getting shriller.
Terms of abuse
I seem to be missing something here mate as the only reference I can find to the holocaust on this site is yours. Furthermore the only shrill screams appear to be coming from those who are trying to claim that global warming is all a socialist/communist plot. However, all is not lost, I have a little exercise that you can do by yourself Brad. Free up a couple of evenings, make yourself a nice pot of tea, relax and sit down with your computer and get on to the internet. Now look up some of those references that you obviously accept as being the real story on global warming, the individuals, the blogs, the websites the lot. Now take them one at a time and start doing some background research on them. You can do this under three broad headings: 1) qualifications - do they have any real knowledge and/or experience that justifies them to pontificate in this area? 2) What connections do they have and what funding do they receive from the energy, mining and other big polluters? 3) And what are their political connections? Once you have identifiied those that have no real qualifications, get a bucket load of money from the polluters, and are closely identified with the hard right you will find that you are left with a very small list indeed. These are the ones who deserve a little respect. Now you can look a bit more closely at what they have actually said as opposed to what they have been quoted as saying by all those who fall into the three categories above. Now switch off the computer, make yourself another pot of tea and sit down and have a good hard think about things.
Grant. The term "Denier" has
Grant. The term "Denier" has been associated with the small group of people who deny the existence of the Holocaust. The AGW brigade seized this term in a deliberate attempt to smear the people sceptical of AGW. This is very well know, so you are either ignorant or stupid not to accept this. Which one is it.
As for your "exercise", I've spend most evening over the last week going trough the files that were obtained from CRU, you know one of the largest climate research facilities in the world. So I'll use this as the basis of my answers. Your own researchers.
So for your points in order
1) the qualifications of these people such as Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Kevin Trenberth, all leaders in their field, have been exposed of manipulation of data. Suppressing information. Misleading, fabrication fraud, etc
2) You do realise that the AGW funding is now in the region on 79 billion dollars, don't you. There is no longer "Big Oil", its now "big Green" the funding made available globally for anyone claiming to be doing research on something remotely connected to Climate Change has their hand out for funding. How many climate change sceptics receive this sort of funding? How can you be unbiased if you funding requires you to toe the party line?
3)Political connections? See funding above.
Instead of blindly following the green line of "Big Oil" - "No Qualifications" (like Al Gore, Tim Flannery, George Monbiot). Why don't you actually have a look outside your little world. Its all coming unravelled.
BTW - You know its no coincidence that the Green movement took off shortly after the fall of communism don't you? All those closet communists had to have something to do.
So glad to know that it is all just a commie plot
My name is not Brad but the above little diatribe appears to be directed largely against my post. It is not my usual policy to get involved in replies to replies, especially where hysterical rants are involved but let me just clear up a couple of points. I was turned on to the environment and the threats that it faces from human activities when I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". It would have been in the mid-sixties and not long after the book first came out. Poor Rachel was, of course, denounced as a commie, as a lesbian - when that was still a very derogatory term - etc, all things she was not, by good and right thinking people like yourself Brad, and one still hears her being accused of causing mega-death in the developing world by denying them access to ddt - which she didn't - by all those good people who only wish to bring the grace of globalisation to those who currently walk in darkness, and that dastardly commie stooges such as me would deny them. In short, I have had an involvement with the movement to protect the human race and our environment from the ravages of rampant profit seeking for a very long time, and during that time I can assure that most of the victories have been on the other side. Why? Because the money and hence the power is on that side. The notion that the really big bucks are on our side is frankly pathetic. Just exercise the imagination for a moment. What do you think the Bush administration, or the Howard government here in Australia would have done had they been able to find one even semi-respectable faculty of climatology, ecology etc, that supported the view that global warming was rubbish? They would have showered them with gold mate, that's what they would have done and make no mistake about it. I don't know where you get your numbers from but I would look seriously at the credentials of whoever is giving them to you.
Just in conclusion, I find it ironic that you take great exception to the use of the "denier", making a rather tenuous claim that it is associated exclusively with those who deny the holocaust, and yet you proceed to use the term communist in a manner that is obviously intended to be derogatory and to be sufficient to discredit the arguments of all to whom it is applied. I have had an extensive involvement over many years with the left side of politics and have met some extremely fine human beings there. The works of Marx and many others take pride of place in my bookshelves, my closet being devoid of books and I make no attempt to hide either myself or my views in cupboards, so you can aim your cheap jibes elsewhere mate.
Oh my, Howard! Have you any
Oh my, Howard! Have you any chance gone back and read your post? We are talking SERIOUS diatribe and hysterical rants!
I really seem to have hit on a raw nerve there. You seem unable to answer that fact that the science you base your religion on, has been exposed as seriously flawed. No amount of frothing from the mouth from you will change that.
Here is a little exercise for you now. Do a simple google search for "Climategate", and have a read. I don't blame you for your ignorance - most people like you have been living in a very shelterd world for the last few years. Its not too late, you just have to want to grow.
Good luck Howard.
"Climategate:? - Kitty flap would be a more apt term
Before any conspiracy theory can gain crediblity it needs to show wherein someone stands to gain from the conspiracy and the effort and usually quite considerable resources required to sustain it. And that is where most of them fail and so remain just conspiracy theories. So, according to Brad and his fellows, the whole body of scientific endeavour in the areas of climatology, ecology et. al. that encompasses thousands of published peer reviewed papers, by thousands of science workers over several decades is just one gigantic plot and it has now been exposed as such by some purlioned emails obtained by a disgruntled hacker with a known grudge against the faculity whose system he hacked into. Methinks you have a bit of work to do on the credibility front here mate, so let's go back to basics. Assume that it is all just a plot, albeit a pretty damn big one. Who stands to gain, and do they have the power and the resources to sustain it all over the decades? The usual answer is that it is the research bodies telling those that dispense the funds what they want to hear in order to retain access to those funds. But that doesn't really work does it? Quite simply because what the scientists have been saying for a considerable tme, and for most of the period being completely ignored, is certainly not what the politicians, who are the providers of most of the funding for this research, wanted to hear. Besides we know that these scientist guys are a pretty damn competitive bunch, as a realistic reading of your hacked emails reveals. So wouldn't at least a few of them try to blow it all apart, and wouldn't they then have got heaps of funds from the grateful pollies for telling what they wanted to really hear? Furthermore, the surest route to your Nobel Prize is to go in the opposite direction to the crowd and prove them all wrong, or at least seriously in error, and come up with your own theory; but no one has done it. What is more those in positions of power have only started to listen seriously very recently, and why? Not because it is what they want to hear but because the weight of scientific evidence is such that they are forced to listen.
Okay, let's take a look at your "Climategate" and attempt a realistic appraisal. A guy with a known grudge from a long running dispute with the faculity in question hacks into their database and helps himself to a large number of emails. These emails are simple day to day communications between fellow scientists and not intended for publication, so we can assume that no one is being candid at all. He makes a selection of these emails, and presumably he takes those that he feels will show the members of the faculity in the worst possible light, and he puts his selection up on a Russian internet site. Now we've already said that this is not a man whose intentions are benevolent, we can safely assume that he is not a Green voter, so he is going for the jugular so to speak. And what great shock horror does he expose, what thirty year plot does he uncover? That these science guys are a pretty competitive bunch, that they use a degree of trade jargon in their communications amongst themselves, that they are not above indulging in a bit of bitching, and that two or three of them were having a bit of a cat fight. Jeezus mate, it is hardly earth shattering stuff is it? No smoking gun, no gunpowder plots uncovered, no alternative theories suppressed in fact not a damn thing of any real substance at all. But the drowning man will clutch at a straw and the media whores are ever desparate for a good headline, so we get "Climategate". Kittyflap would be a lot more like it.
Climategate
Much better than your last foaming rant, you at least kept your temper in check this time.
As for Climategate, you must be better informed than me regarding who the whistleblower was, Howard. I was not aware it was a person with a "known grudge". Although I think you are being dishonest, does it change the content?
And surely day to day emails would be far MORE candid than official reports? Another case of you being dishonest?
Unfortunately Howard, the Climategate emails that clearly show that scientific process has been compromised, are not the main evidence that show what a scam this is. If you had actually looked into the information that the whistleblower released, the real gold was "programmers' notes" in the code files. (Although I do like the "hide the decline" and the "its a travesty that we can't explain the recent cooling" lines by Jones.)
What the programmers notes clearly show the extent of data manipulation that is required to get these models to show what the IPCC want. These notes are written into the models so that they can be refered to later on it replication is required. Did you look at this Howard?
Now, if the CRU are doing this - and its not just them (Dr Mann's Hockey stick has already been exposed)then the basis of all the IPCC reports are inaccurate, and cannot be used as justification or proof of man made climate change. So yes, this is earth shattering stuff. The very fabric that holds the climate change religion together is unravelling.
Its not just here either, have a look at the latest opinion polls out of the US and UK - less than 50% believe that the science is settled.
Not only this, but still to this day - Not one scientific report has been able to PROVE that C02 causes global warming. There have been correlation studies that show some relationship, but as an example if you were to plot short sleeve shirts, and temperature together in the same way as Co2 and temp, the correlation would also show that wearing short sleeve shirts causes temp increases. As any statistician knows, correlation is NOT causation. Please correct me on this with a link.
I cannot say why you so stubbornly cling to this hoax, but it would be an interesting psychology study to look at Climate Change in the context of other global panics over the past century:
UFO Attacks
Nuclear Holocaust
World Hunger
New Ice Age
Ozone hole
Y2K
Bird Flu
Swine Flu
Global Warming
Climate Change....Feel free to add ones that I've missed.
What's next? Why is it that humans need to have a crisis to deal with?
Is it simply because news sells? Is it because governments like a population that is scared? Or is it a psychological condition?
The great kittyflap conspiracy
Look I admit it's my own fault, I do not normally get into protracted debates with conspiracy theorists as it is about as rewarding as "debating" with creationists and the intelligent design crowd, so this is will be my last comment on this topic.
The problem is this crisis is actually real and far from trying to scare populations, I would suggest that the war on terror is a far more likely candidate for that, governments have been trying to either ignore or deny it. Why don't you try telling the population of the Kiribati Islands or the Maldives, or any of the other Pacific atoll countries whose land is already starting to disappear under the sea that it is all just a hoax. Or perhaps you should advise the inhabitants of the Bay of Bengal that they should stop wearing short sleeved shirts. I would guess that embracing a conspiracy theory gives one a nice warm kind of feeling knowing that you are part of a unique group that knows the real truth. However, for the rest of the human race fantasy is not a real option, and for many of those humans the problems are getting to be pretty immediate.
I have actually looked into this "Climategate" affair quite deeply and I have yet to hear or read anyone outside of the usual crowd who believe that anything of any great significance has been exposed albiet it has caused a few red faces, as would be expected in such an affair. But those who want to believe will believe and there is nought that I or anyone else can do to change that.
IPCC Lies.
Absolute rubbish.
Look. Although you regard me not only as a denier, but also a conspiracy theorist, at least I have provided a number of links to back up my position. As debating goes, you have failed. I see you clearly only like to debate with like minded people. I can see how rewarding this must be for you.
Anyway, since you brought up sea levels, here is another interesting link. This one is a report from Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. He is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, a contributor to the IPCC reports, and lead the "Maldives sea level project". Im sure you can agree that his qualifications make him a suitable reference.
This particular report discussed rising sea levels.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMorner...
I challenge you to read this report and point out any areas you disagree with, in particular with regards to your statement on the Maldives.
Heres a brief quote because I doubt your integrity to actually read the link provided.
"So there we are. Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a
drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes,
you are correct, because we remember”—things in their sailing
routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed.
I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I
looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments.
Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell
about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or
something. Not a change in volume or something like that—it
was a rapid thing. The new level, which has been stable, has
not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very
carefully. No rise at all is the answer there."
So perhaps the inhabitants of the Maldives should actually read the report from the author, rather than the one that the IPCC provides.
Another interesting point, and its explained in the report is quote
"Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a
subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges,
you have to treat very, very carefully."
Why would the IPCC use that reference Howard? The IPCC is a political organisation, not a scientific one. They choose what studies to include in their reports, based on what they want the reports to say.
Climategate? - It proves that the scientists manipulate data to show a predetermined outcome. The IPCC uses these outcomes. The world is listening and reacting to the IPCC reports. Call me conspiracy theorist all you like, but the evidence speaks for itself.
One thing I would like to clarify about my motives. I am actually an environmentalist. I abhor pollution, destruction of the landscape, deforestation, waste, but most of all, I abhor the hijacking of true environmentalism by politics.
brad what you have found is
brad what you have found is fools gold , if you actually want to understand the context of the "notes"
go to real climate org. and look up post 152 in CRU hack context.
if however you believe it is all a global conspiracy, do not bother
rgds
if you spend your time at WATTS up with that and like blogs you are going to learn nothing about AGW the real and immediate threat
brad what you have found is
brad what you have found is fools gold , if you actually want to understand the context of the "notes"
go to real climate org. and look up post 152 in CRU hack context.
if however you believe it is all a global conspiracy, do not bother
rgds
if you spend your time at WATTS up with that and like blogs you are going to learn nothing about AGW the real and immediate threat
Post new comment