Anyone who questions global warming is spreading misinformation and undermining the scientific consensus according to Kelvin Thomson, Australia’s shadow minister for public accountability and human services.
This senior member of the Labor party recently wrote to Australian companies warning them away from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA)*.
The letter states we are propagandists and that “global warming is happening, it is man-made, and it is not good for us.”
I often speak publicly on global warming as a senior fellow at the IPA. My assessment of the situation is based on my own reading and independent analysis.
I agree with Kelvin Thomson that global warming is happening. But I am not convinced that the warming is wholly or even mostly man-made. Indeed the geological record shows that the earth has been warming since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago and it is unclear how much of the current warming is a continuation of this trend or due to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
As regards the purported consensus, earlier this year sixty accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines sent an open letter to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, explaining that “global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural noise.”
Just last month, William M. Gray, professor emeritus of atmospheric science, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University explained: “My main motivation to continue my research is to help maintain the integrity of American science which, in my view, has been badly compromised by the global warming issue and now recently by the issue of global warming causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes.”
In seeking to ‘name and shame’ those who fund the IPA, Thomson is following the led of the Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific academy. The society recently wrote to US energy company Exxon Mobil asking that it stop funding groups that it believes ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’.
After outlining the extent and diversity of energy and climate change related research funded by ExxonMobil, the 3-page response from ExxonMobil’s vice president of public affairs, Kenneth Cohen, concluded: “Our own objective, as it relates to climate change, is to seek solutions that protect the environment but do not threaten the aspirations of the billions of people who desire and deserve a better quality of life. Is that not a worthwhile road to be on? We have a role to play in the policy discussions on these subjects. It is disappointing that representatives of the Royal Society find it appropriate to intentionally misstate our actions and positions relating to these important topics.”
Are we entering a period of Climate McCarthyism?
In today’s Australian Financial Review, the IPA’s executive director, John Roskam, in a piece entitled ‘ALP needs climate change’, argues that “despite differences about the causes of climate change, it would be hoped that there’s one aspect of the issue about which there could be unanimiity. Ideally, all sides of the issue would agree that discussion about climate change is a good thing — and the more discussion the better.”
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is an independent, non-profit, public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom. Support debate and discussion on global warming, join the IPA today.
——————
* The letter, dated 27th September, also names the International Policy Network, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the European Science and Environment Forum as undermining the scienitific consensus.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
hmmmm
So Jen you have to ask yourself – in terms of the current warming what hypotheses do I have and what is the evidence. You know the list by now.
Don’t beat around the bush – if you’re serious write the analysis ! (here !).
Gray is a voice but we could obviously list others the other way. The recent South African conference left it as uncertain and highly contested.
A balanced commentary would have been “on the one hand the following scientists have said .. .. while the following have said .. ..” The issues of uncertainty are .. ..
You guys don’t make scientific arguments though – it’s quasi-scientific/political.
That’s cool – but you will get some intense flack in politics. And you’re not really scared or upset are you ? All part of the territory.
Want to impress the punters? Make a serious argument for and against. Want to impress the cheer squad and ra ra crowd and play the politics – well just keep going the way you are.
Exxon are just playing smart half a two bob bet each way. Depends who’s listening and who’s in the room. Delay any action as long as possible and BTW we also have the new technologies if you might need them.
If the IPA was serious – it would be back on a science message and giving us a thoughtful risk analysis.
Waiting .. .. ..
To the extent that Exxon want to debate climate change =policy= and have a say on the appropriateness of various measures to deal with global warming, they definitely have a point.
But if they provide funding whose sole purpose is to undermine the =science= to get the desired policy outcome, that’s not ethical in my view. Legal of course, but not ethical.
“Are we entering a period of Climate McCarthyism?”
No, most certainly not, lets breathe into a paper bag, stop hyperventilating and avoid the scare tactics and alarmism hmmm?
There will be no silencing of Exxon-Mobil, the worlds biggest company. Don’t make me laugh.
A letter from a shadow minister most Australians have never heard of hardly makes any difference either, apart from one days worth of media.
When Ian McFarlane tells you that you better accept global warming and shut down your blog or else people will come to your house, take you away and jail you, maybe the McCarthyism label will be appropriate.
Just filing this link here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/19/1160851062943.html .
Aussie is a climate taker – not a climate maker (1.4% world’s emissions and on the receiving end of El Nino?)so adaptation is probably the name of the game. So given ongoing drought, vast amounts going out in EC payments, and ageing farm workforce – how do we restructure ourselves to adapt?
Might sequestration in farm trees, woody weeds? be a future source of income and provide some environmental side benefits. (if you can trade carbon?).
When the IPA claims to be “dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom” then WHOSE freedoms is it talking of? Its sponsors? Who are they? Does the IPA claim to be a benevolent organisation fighting for an increase in total social welfare?
The IPA is: independent, non-profit, public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.
The IPA is not: transparent, open, publicly credible or representational or democratically elected to act on issues of public interest. (Note that non-governmental Not For Profit organisations can be publicly elected eg via civil society $ contributions and other forms of public support, but the IPA is privately supported).
If the IPA was truly dedicated to “strengthening … political freedom” then it would be **transparent** about its policy-making processes and its influences. A core human right is access to information (agreed internationally because it’s widely known that information and knowledge can be used for political outcomes that abuse human rights). An important measure of good governance is transparency of processes and freedom of information.
Therefore IPA can never be perceived as dedicated to popular freedoms while it represents concentrated interests via hidden processes and secret funding. Therefore Jennifer can never make a credible claim to be independent on environmental issues while she claims ignorance about which vested interests pay her wage.
This is the challenge to the IPA’s credibility that it can never overcome without fundamental reform. (This challenge to the IPA will probably manifest from within because as environmental issues get more public awareness and support, and as transparency in policy-making gets more attention, corporations will take other routes, such as supporting business actions to address AGW, and reduce contributions to lobbyists. It seems this might already be happening as apparently the IPA’s contributions are shrinking).
Luke / Steve,
This is an interesting contribution to Jen’s proposition;
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
or just to really get your blood pressure up there’s this;
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
but the observation that Thomson is attempting to starve the IPA to shut it up is obvious.
The pro-AGW theory camp includes most Western Governments, most of the free press , plenty of large corporations, ( including Enron before it went a—e up), the major churches , public opinion , most scientific organisations etc etc.
Why is it so necessary to stop Exxon or IPA or any other organisation or individual advancing a clearly minority / unpopular position on AGW?
Why is there so much sensitivity from the pro-AGW side on any hereticism?
Mainly because it’s wrong!
I think the IPA etc can play a big role in the debate with what we can do but as long as they down play or downright deny the problem exists then they’ve dealt themselves out of the game. The IPA and other should look at the ‘most-likely’ global warming predictions, acknowledge the full role that greenhouse gases emmissions play and argue over the solutions.
I would have thought a cap and trade policy would have a good position for IPA etc to take and this would allow the market and private industry to work out the best solutions to the problem.
it’s all to do with concentrated powers and distortion of information Jim. It’s about political choice theory Jim, as Jennifer said so herself one day: ie high ROI to lobbyists/producer groups v’s distributed public costs.
ie, political choice theory says that organised producer groups have high incentives to lobby:
– relatively low costs of lobby action, low costs borne by the lobbyists
– relatively high potential gains shared among a small number of lobbyists
– costs to fund gains to lobbyists borne by society, distributed among many tax-payers
– diverse interests and many numbers in society mean low involvement and high costs of organisation to resist lobbyist influence
– high political gains to parties between elections via contributions from lobbyists, impact of decisions not usually large or immediate enough to get them unelected next election time
Well said Jim!
Jim – dream on – as certainty approaches and the evidence mounts the whinging gets louder. Doesn’t effect my blood pressure.
It’s not necessary to stop any minority group advancing an opinion – it’s not a problem – it has little effect on the science at all. But if the science is disparaged and we have rampant interference with robust policy development we reserve the right to call b/s when we see it. And there’s plenty of b/s.
(and corporations will try it on if they can get away with it – see the tobacco industry )
Do you find it strange the Exxon is investing so heavily in alternative energies yet claim that climate change isn’t an issue – why bother?
The pro-AGW camp ? USA, Canada, and Australia aren’t really in ?
The press – they run hot and cold. More interested in selling controversy than anything.
You won’t starve the IPA – teh argy bargy sounds like a funding drive. All the hardliners will write a big cheque to keep them going.
But as I said initially – we can play games and take political pot-shots – or research and write something substantial in terms of a review and risk analysis. Get some critique and peer review from a wide range of sources. That is if one was serious .. .. .. and not astro-turfing.
Jen, do you have a list of the companies that Kelvin Thomson wrote to? Any word on how they have replied?
This is simply political bullying.
Pinxi, surely you don’t think everyone has a right to access any information they want, do you. Isn’t that what is implied by a “core human right”?
Luke,
1.Not dreaming at all – I accept what the majority of experts say ; that the cause of some/most of the current warming is human activity.
BUT that doesn’t mean that different views incense me.
If they’re BS then call them for it – but only the narrow minded ( or the truly afraid) would presume to dictate who organisations can donate money to.
2.I await the arrival of certainty with relish!
But if it’s not here yet , then can’t some other theories get a hearing?
3. Corporations – such as Exxon or Greenpeace – have stakeholders whose interests they want to represent. It’s how honest they are that counts. Is every study/review Greenpeace funds always conducted with absolute independence?
4. Agreed hardliners are a pain – are you saying they’re confined to one side of the debate?
5. You’re not seriously suggesting that the media isn’t taking a generally ( not without exception) pro-AGW line are you?
Simon C. – the IPA has chosen not to follow your advice and divert it’s resources into advancing other arguments. That’s it’s right.
Paul, did I say “everyone has a right to access any information they want”? Do you think people should have the right to access information that affects them and affects decisions that affect them?
Paul, on 3. how transparent is each organisation on its stakeholders that make direct financial contributions?
Does the IPA publicly state whether or not it receives support from Exxon or affiliates? Does it?
woops, that’s Jim on 3. …. not Paul
If the IPA is so ‘independent’ then why can’t it reveal its backers? Until it does so, it is no better than the left-wing political stooges it denounces.
JD, who exactly are you? Hiding behing two initials? Why?
Are you frightened that if you reveal your real identity you may be disadvantage in the work place or commercially or socially because of the opinions you hold?
Same for Pinxi and Luke? They won’t reveal their true identify at this blog, perhaps because they fear that someone like Kelvin Thomson will hunt them down and publicly villify them? That they might be commerically or otherwise disadvantaged?
Based on past experience the IPA would be foolish to publish the names of those organisations and individuals who support it. Experience has shown that there are lots of ‘Kelvin Thomsons’ in the world who make it their purpose in life to go after organisations and individuals whose opinions they don’t like.
Indeed, look at the national and international campaign against Gunns Ltd.
And BTW, I’ve worked for government, and I’ve worked for industry, and the IPA is the first organisation that really encourages me to develop and express my own opinion — no editorial control.
Jen – I’m not asking you to reveal your backers so don’t get too touchy. Who’s Kelvin Thomson anyway? Never heard of him. Just tell him to bugger off. Surely you guys aren’t that delicate?
I go by the quality of your argument. That’s the important thing.
Jim – press – pro-AGW – mate start making cuttings and do a survey. I can remember Bolt, McCann, Pearson, major letters from Kinimonth, Carter, Plimer.
Other theories do get a hearing – they take off like wildfire. Undiscriminating. Like cosmic rays in the last 2 weeks. Pity there appears to be no relationship. The press went nuts over it.
And yep both Exxon and Greenpeace have gotten it wrong on many occasions. However there’s a big difference between unconscious misguided zealotry and lack of judgement compared with deliberate attempts at obfuscation.
An interesting link that once again seems to demonstrate that the science is far from complete and there is clearly good reason to be sceptical.
.http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
It relates to a French scientist who 20 years ago was part of the push to raise awareness of human induced global warming…..he is now sceptical.
Much of the science may support AGW but clearly not all scientists do agree. Bill Gray appears adamant that there is room for doubt as well.
Luke I did email the julesandjames blog site to get their odds on AGW…..I have not heard back. But if the proponents of AGW are so sure ( and they appear to harbour no doubts from many of the comments and the repeated calls that the debate is over) then I reckon they should be making me some pretty tasty odds. Note I do not say it is not human induced, i just think the burden of proof still lies on those that say it is not natural.
Anybody else care to show me their odds…I m not saying which side I ll bet on… please show me a two way price!…But those who believe the debate is over and that “Anyone who questions global warming is spreading misinformation and undermining the scientific consensus” should be showing me some very tasty odds….should they not? ……And if they do not then can we charge them for adding to the misinformation that polarises this debate??
sorry for the double post I was trying to check my spelling …..but it was already sent!
No private company reveals its business details, it is only those that use public money which are compelled to give some information – usually in the form of top 20 shareholders (and they could be shelf companies). There are standards that all companies must perform to, preparation of accounts etc but only the broad elements (eg revenue, costs of sales) are required to be made public by listed companies.
Notwithstanding that privacy is a right, I want to see Pinxiis tax returns for the last 5 years as a demonstration of her version of “accountability and transparency”
Toby:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/
It appears that the author of the original article got a few facts wrong as well as misrepresenting others work. Probably his biggest and most obvious would be claiming that tectonic movements over a million years are to blame for the disappearing glaciers of the Kilimanjaro in the last 100 years.
Rog – you can’t – the Cayman’s don’t release her that sort of data.
Toby – your senate link – mate did you learn anything from your interaction here. If you want to believe that “reputable source” go ahead. I thought you’d be at the stage of picking the errors, try-ons and b/s in it by now. Actually I know an Angolan father of 3 that’s become a devout believer. Try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ William knows them – I’m sure he’ll help you get a bet on.
I’d start to worry if I had the Royal Society on my side of any debate.
They are the lot that kicked Darwin out, aren’t they?
Probably still being run by the same blokes, too.
Pinxi, you used the concept of access to information as a “core human right” to denigrate the credibility of both Jennifer and the IPA. There may be many instances where access to information can be legitimately restricted, so it is hardly a “core human right”.
Luke my point is not and was not to support the link ….merely to stress that idiots that shout the debate is over …and there are so many of them, have clearly got their head in the sand ( yes i did read the article he actually wrote and much of it did seem confused…but isnt it at least a bit interesting that he was one of the original scientists to tell us it was AGW…but now he has changed his mind from sure to sceptical). I read Bill Gray’s material( and sent the article to Jen) and he seems quite rational and makes some interesting points surely!? (points that contradict some of your evidence in favour of AGW)
To make my point clearer I asked for all of you that are so firmly of the opinion that it is human enduced, to show me your odds. Now we would need to set the paremeters for the bet of course but unless you show me sizeable odds of it not being human enhanced I WOULD NOT BET …..but if the odds are not significant then it stands to reason that there is still doubt!? I have approached the site you suggested for their odds (once I read the majority of the material on this blogs archives and attached links)but JULESANDJAMES have not as yet responded.
My assessment of the risk is that it is probably human enhanced……but if you AGW are so sure then I am prepared to bet on the other side given reasonable odds.
The ‘story’at the top of page is all about shutting down debate…if he/they are 99% sure then show me 99:1….or even 50:1…if you are talking less than 10:1 then ‘you’ are clearly a bit sceptical as well….and the debate must stay alive.
Do you think Kelvin Thomson would make me odds? He should if he is so adament that the debate should be shut down!!
Luke this is not about my view this is about demands to shut down debate ( and I have seen articles recently linking AGW sceptics to being ‘holocaust deniers’).
If the expected climate changes do not occur (and lets face it we all hope they don t!), and debate has been shut down, how long do you think it will take for scientists to regain their credibility?
Luke & Toby; can I suggest a project where you can both put your money to an advantage, where your mouth is so to speak?
We need a simple project on the www that can outline the natural impact of a sea level rise of say half to one and a half meters around a few popular places. My bet is many will use it soon. Knowing just who and where is the tricky bit but it doesn’t matter in the short term because I’m sure all most likely affected property values will change a lot in our lifetime.
The big question is where does the smart money go and when?
This not an idle comment because my kids will be thinking about their mother’s beach property which is only about two meters above now and is placed about halfway between the high tide and the old flood plain behind the frontal dune system such as it today all built on. In their previous property a few blocks away I cut the bottom off the old cottage with my chain saw after the backend rotted then subsided with the frequent floods in its early days. Don’t tell me the sea levels have gone down since though because residents had the local council redrain the wet paddocks immediately behind all houses.
I asked my youthful hairdresser only yesterday if she believed in man made climate change. What surprised me most was her anger, not with me as it turned out but our situation. Then I asked how she knew. To cut a long story short it’s only what she gained from the media even though she grew under water down the coast and wants to go back ASAP and start a diving Biz. I also gathered from her outburst she did not like entertaining customers while she worked on their hair. I bet she has plenty of feedback though on our subject through her other customers.
Allow me to guess more about our situation. It will take about three times as long to fix climate change as it will to fix the ozone hole. That’s plenty of time for a substantial ice melt. My other big guess is a 900 mm rise or less can collapse all protective frontal dune systems. A reader or two may recall some of “my” 70’s recruits directly studied a large dune collapse in very shallow waters over several months.
Rough time scales must be another part of our project.
So Gray sounds quite rational eh?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Toby,
If the expected climate changes do not occur —
I think then Luke discovers the crack in the seat of the long-drop exists.
Cayman? as in “see you later alligator..?”
http://tinyurl.com/yllu7g
You’re in well – Pinx sent you her piccy.
Ian Beale,
“If the expected climate changes do not occur” is the key. The Great and the Good see a stable pre-industrial climate, only now disturbed by people burning fossil fuels; with more and more warming to come – no cold intervals. Some sceptics (like me) see a 300-year warming trend since the Maunder Minimum – with fluctuations. The 1920s-30s warming was reversed in the mid 40s, and there was a return to warming in the mid 70s. The next cool reversal could be as soon as next year. But the big news is that the next Little Ice Age cold period could be here by 2020, and fully developed by 2030. Who is right – mainstream or sceptics? No one knows; but a real-life test is on. Use of carbon-rich coal has increased 29% since 1990 – all in China/India. Their use doubled, their growth continues, and they won’t stop in the next 15 years. If cooling comes by 2020, we will know (what I suspect) that the Royal Society of London/IPCC/CSIRO “mainstream” hypothesis of a people-driven climate is nonsense. Just wait.
fosbob should tell us now: just what we are waiting for?
If that’s Pinxi then I’m DEFINITELY on her side!
Luke – Bolt , Mc Crann et al are not in the majority by any measure.
Gavin If I could only get students to be interested enough in Geography pre year 10 to get them to study Geography at year 12 level this would make an ideal topic for research. It certainly would be interesting to see what happens to our coastal areas given different sea level changes or increases in storm surges. It would also be interesting (and should be done) to start pricing the cost of adaptation to changes as well. I suspect that in all reality there is not much we can really do to change climate if it us thats driving change. As Fobsob says above, China and India will not slow down for a long while to come….and they won’t get rich enough for a while yet to force dramatic changes on their populations. Hope lies with the finite status of oil which will/is forcing the big companies to find alternatives.
The ‘fear’ of climate change does not as yet seem to be restricting coastal development…or even I believe from stopping foreign investors buying up large tracts of land on islands that are ‘forecast’ to disappear soon.
However-
….. for those who do believe you better start selling now (i am a buyer at the right price but I am not a buyer of property in the current market inland or on beach front)
……or for those who are suitably cautious or opportunistic risk takers I suggest you look at a map and buy property that is at least a few metres above the height of the frontal dunes.
It is a great idea to set up a web site on possible future beach front locations….for both sides of the debate to use. Maybe during the next school holidays I ll have a go! I m not particularly strong on computers though so I hope Luke can help!?
Toby – already happening. See http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/ClimateChanges/pub/OceanHazardsMenu.html
Maximum envelopes of waters (MEOWs) from storm surge from different strength cyclones on different tides and different angles of attack.
Luke, I did actually read the critique from realclimate after I initially read the Gray paper….I prefer to smoke THC! (haha joke)
The critique certainly poured water on many of his arguments….but as a non expert what Gray had to say was certainly not irrational. He is after all right is he not that the predicted Hurricane activity in 2006 did not eventuate ( he also predicted increases!)…and that hurricane activity over the last century has not actually increased….I know you say it has and have given me links….but he is not the only one saying it (I have NASA graphs {at school so can t give you link…although I have done before} showing the same thing)…..not just Gray’s studies.
But irrespective of all that my point about showing me the odds is surely very valid. You seem to be so sure..what odds will you make me that say in 30 years time temperatures are not higher than 1 degree above today? 2 degrees? 3 degrees? ….what about 0.5 degrees lower than they are today?….If the odds are not significant then there is doubt…..all I was really trying to challenge is the idiot Kelvin Thomson and his demand that people stop debating GW…..and even more importantly, if it does all turn out to be an error ( hope so!), how difficult will it be for scientists to be listened to again?…its important I think that the scientists stand up and acknowledge that they can not possibly know…but only give us their honest opinions based on all reasonable facts and understanding…..and based on this it is important that we start looking for adaptations or solutions …where the debate should be directed is looking at cost benefit analysis of doing nothing, a little or a lot. Maybe Gavin’s idea for us to look at the areas in Oz that will be badly effected by a rise in sea level could help us reach some conclusions?
Toby – I think hurricane prediction is a brave game. Are the AGW crowd into that?
I don’t sea level rise is an immediate issue unless the ice sheets suddenly collapse. What I think are issues in Australia is the drought we’ve been in for many years, water supply, storm surge, very fast (not more) tropical cyclones and there’s been quite a few whizzing around our region (e.g. Vance, Ingrid, Zoe, Nancy)AND changes in the east Australian currents and eastern and Indian Ocean gyres which will, if not already, be affecting ocean biodiversity.
As for bets you have to compare something like a seven year average of today with say a seven year average in 10-15 years time against a standard data source. Warmer or cooler. A few of those bets are on.
In terms of odds – we all you can do is sample the spread of errors in the various model runs or sample the chaos in the ensembles they run. That’s all science there is. And there are upper and lower estimates on climate sensitivity. It’s also difficult as it depends what humanity does with fossil fuels – every possibility from no change or much more emissions to a medium effort on cutting back or better technology?
See the style of science in http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/SA_CMAR_report_High%20resolution.pdf for confidence and variation.
I don’t know of any well accepted science that suggests a cooler future (bar cooling from aerosols and dust via long shots like massive volcanic activity or asteroid impact).
Toby: Good engineering if often the result of a bit of imagination coupled with some sound experience. Getting kids playing with some realistic models won’t hurt anyone at this stage. After all its going to be their job to fix it when the high tides rush in. It’s also about being at the leading edge. Australia has a lot of coastline to consider.
There is a lot to be said about kids getting hands on early though. Fifty years ago boys in my high school class got a sound technical education in addition to math and science. It included some resounding whacks from the blade of a very large blackboard tee square. Tom was a good administrator in other ways. One classmate became our Marine Board diver and worked through decades of our deep sea port development. Another one year ahead, became a marine engineer. Others worked through various industries. When it was my kids turn at the new high school, I got a job at the back of most high school science classes mending stuff they used and watching modern teachers. Much depends on attitude development.
My lads took turns and helped milk a neighbour’s big dairy herd before and after school for their pocket money and that is all they got. Without going over details , much depends on independence however we still discuss teamwork concepts as applied to their tasks in dealing with a much wider world than mine ever was.
Teamwork is a theme missing on this blog.
Pinxii is the one UNDER the car, the one with *GoodYear* on her forehead!
Hi Toby
I’ll offer you odds of 80 to 1 that there is a human forcing to climate change. The bet is only open to you (limited funds) and since neither of us wants to be accused of profiteering from the suffering of others I think the bet should be limited to what I would call a ‘quid’ . You can bet an Aussie dollar and I’ll put up sterling, which gives you an extra incentive. :o)
Give us a break Gavin, I thought Dads Army was funny on the TV but didnt expect to deal with it in real life.
*I’ll offer you odds of 80 to 1 that there is a human forcing to climate change*
Yes but what degree of human forcing, 0.001% or 1 % or what?
Gavin there is at times ‘teamwork’ but …..not constructive teamwork! It does seem that it might be time for both ‘sides’ (if thats what they are)to be more constructive. Is there the possibility of synergies!?
I have helped a Dairy friend milk his cows many times ( even did it for a day when his wife gave birth to their second child)..my kids have helped as well…we all hate the smell that seems to get stuck in your clothes! So I can t imagine asking them to milk for their pocket money! Great principle though!
In terms of the practical education, I predict there will be a move back to the old technical schools in the near future.
Luke I think you will find there are a number of scientists who based on solar cycles and activity are already predicting cooling by 2020. Im sure I have seen lots of links through these blog sites and also recall hearing very recently of Russian scientists making a cooling prediction….I am not saying they are right…but they could be! (so depending on the odds i am happy to even bet on a decrease in temp!)
I know I have mentioned it before but are you familiar with Rosenthal’s Rats? You tend to get what you are expecting to find is the crux of it.
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_121.asp interestingly similar tests have been carried out on teachers and students and the same thing happens.
Lamna..exactly how will you prove that the temp change was due to humans…and not just part of the natural cycle. We need much tighter parameters than that. If it is human enhanced then the rate of change should be speeding up? 0.4 c in last 30 years approx? How about I say temperature will not have risen by more than 0.6 celcius by 2030 on a seven year average (thanks Luke)? But you tell me what temp change you think 80:1 warrants and if its reasonable you are on.
Unfortunately for such a small amount its really only a token so not of any significance…however I am genuine in wanting to place a ‘real’ bet …i am thinking of say 1,000-10,000 of my money aganst say 80,000- 800,000 of your money?!( or even lower the odds a bit to say 50:1 That makes it worthwhile and worth chasing).
BUT it all depends on the odds. Id much rather have JAMESANDJULES make me a price. The rubbish on their site about people not wanting to bet with them is ridiculous. They are the ones so adammant it is happening and yet the odds they mention they have offered to scientists who are sceptical indicate they actually are not very sure at all. ….I still wait to hear back from them!
It’s interesting how Jennifer’s post so quickly drew out all the old, tired and utterly useless arguments.
1. AGW skeptics want to hurt the environment.
2. AGW skeptics are against environmentalists.
3. Therefore AGW skeptics are intentionally bad people.
4. Nobody is intentionally bad unless there is an incentive.
5. Therefore AGW skeptics are paid to be intentionally bad.
6. Corporations that pay others to be bad are themselves bad.
7. Therefore corporations that fund AGW skeptics are bad.
8. There is a consensus that we should protect the environment.
9. Environmentalists want to protect the environment.
10. Those skeptical of the claims of environmentalists undermine the consensus of (8).
11. Therefore, AGW skeptics are bad people, the corporations who fund them are bad, and everyone who cares for the environment, which is basically everyone, is part of the consensus that they are bad.
12. Given the all around badness of AGW skeptics and the corporations that support them, and the importance of protecting the environment, the moral turpitude involved is such as to establish a moral duty to launch *ad hominem* attacks against them without regard to environmental data.
13. Since there is a consensus that we should protect the environment (8) and environmentalists want to protect the environment (9), an *ad hominem* attack on environmentalists is therefore bad, in contrast to the goodness of *ad hominem* on AGW skeptics (12).
There is a weakness in point 12. That is, that we know environmentalists *do* make use of environmental data. However, they use it selectively for four different, but related purposes:
A. They use the data in order to establish who are skeptics, which becomes a pretext for hurling points (1) – (12) above at their heads.
B. Since environmentalism is a religion, the only facts which are necessary are the few needed to establish who is bad, which may be determined using points (1) – (12).
C. Since environmentalism is a business, the only facts which are necessary are the few needed to establish incentives for donations, grants, etc.
D. Since environmentalists are lobbyists, the only facts which are necessary are the few needed to serve the interests of their clients.
Hi Toby,
My terms are simple, we meet on the Barrier Reef in 25 years time. If 90% of scientists agree at that point in time that there is a globally relevant anthropogenic forcing to climate change you owe me 80 bucks. Winner buys lunch.
Stop trying to hedge your bet, I am not a hedge fund manager (hence no £800,000). If you want to play Texas Hold’em, this is the wrong forum. :o)
“purpose in life to go after organisations and individuals whose opinions they don’t like”..
This is the express purpose of the IPA. eg attack on environmental NGOs
Double standard: Jennifer regularly criticises other organisations and individuals for allegedly being biased by vested interestes but IPA sponsors remain a protected secret. Does the IPA take $$$ from Exxon?
I do have a very similar photo to rog’s, funnily enough, only a bit older & with sand & goats in background. Good to have you on board Jim.
Pinxi,
Thank you for illustrating my points so nicely.
Are you an eco-religionist, an eco-moralist, a lobbyist, or a fund-raiser?
Shillsa – hope come you can count better than you spell?
Jennifer: There is an exclusive New alarm about climate change is driving a major shift in federal policy – “Bid to take water power” on the CT front page – scientists called in for crisis meeting its mostly about water
Rog, schiller: In my neck of the woods sceptics are now quite irrelevant. Dads Army? Who cares hey?
Luke; I heard Premier Beatie on the news this week asking people to go easy on some of your major engineering around town. Although I don’t know details I wish to remind you of sand and subsidence issues because there is nothing permanent about coastlines or estuaries even in the short term. I may be ahead of you but we must be prepared for an acceleration of all remedial work regardless of levels. Sure coastlines is my thing
What do I know hey. Years ago I had a long holiday on the gold coast with my young family living in two hike tents. My kids had to catch fish in the creek to eat.
Before I was legally declared fit to work I put my name down for the dole as a supervising instrument technician to give them a fair chance. The next day my kiwi mate who was also stony broke after selling a vast Victorian property in partnership, all his money was in trust like mine, decided we had enough of starving kids so he took me to the work que before dawn. Big brown and rough as he was I was certain we had the first team job at the head of the line as the limo cruised past.
Luke: down in the mud in all those canal estates I could dig ooze for ever and ever but I quit as soon as I had enough petrol money to get back to the refineries where I could be officially sacked on the spot. That was a long time ago but what I had seen discussed me. That whole Nerang river strip was barely above sea level. Stabilizing dikes came after the early canal houses were built but were not connected in a proper engineering way.
Note; I had a lot of good company elsewhere building big sea walls after reclaiming land slips and old bay fronts.
This week after another old cobber turned up for a cuppa we discussed building his proposed big new workshop on that flat beach front down south. Since a shed is a life to a bloke and any home builder knows what a “floating” slab is, I won’t go into the engineering here. However as I discovered all dunes are prone to flood swirls way back we joking gave this new project a use by date and it was definitely way past the end of either of us. But that is just a wish in the end
Three old people unanimously decided if rising seas don’t occur each will jump for joy regardless of the time on behalf of the skeptics here
Lamna, with all due respect you have either missed my point…or made it. That is if you are so sure it is happening then why would you offer me only an evens bet? or 2.5/1 given the exchange rate differences? for simplicity sake if its evens that means you are 50/50 on it…..
Your idea of using 90% of scientists as a measure also fails to take into account thats what we are told already think it is AGW…..but if all they can come up with is evens bets then they are also all sceptical!
Anyway sorry if I have bored people in trying to make my point.
Any one notice that the AGW’ers are generally government employees, liberals (in the US sense) or greenies. All want us to change out behaviour according to various pereceived future events.
Note that the sceptical among us are not on some crusade to force people to change their behaviour but are sceptical because so far the hypothesis of AGW and CO2 warming theory remains untested and unverified. No experimental evidence has been produced to show that an increase in CO2 can accelerate the water cycle and increase greenhouse warming with water vapour. In fact, ice core evidence from the past shows that it doesn’t.
That the Kevin Thomson vilifies the IPA as Jen shows here, together with David Suzuki’s performance at the Nation Press Club recently, reminds me much of Germany during the 1930’s. Why even our own Margo Kingston suggested climate sceptics be charged for crimes against humanity!
But what makes me laugh somewhat is the general belief among the AGWers, who are invariably socialists, that since inidviduals have no free will but are subject to the forces of history, then how on earth with this belief they can accept humanity is changing the earth’s climate. It is at its core a falisfication of their beliefs.
Perhaps that is why they have morphed into irrational screaming haradans, running around like chicken littles squaking “the sky is falling in”. They are indeed the conservatives of our era, afraid of change and quite willing to force the rest of us to behave as to how THEY feel we ought to behave.
Wasn’t it Jacques Cousteau who averred that the world is over-populated and needs culling?
Calling climate sceptics holocaust deniers is but the first step in a process where by a common nod and a wink everyone ends up thinking that climate deniers are “untermenschen” and when the thought police come to arrest us for crimes against humanity, arrange Nuremburg Trials and then despatch us in the customary manner, (remember that Kevin Thompson and his fellow travellers have so far given the world Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao-Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Castro and “dear Leader” in North Korea who collectively have despatched over 100 million souls), then we can say we have arrived at another Dark Age.
Except that this time the sceptics are not going to allow it to happen.
Has anyone noticed that denialists tend to be cranky old geologists who think they know it all, retired meteorologists well past their use by date, fossil fuel lobbyists and shills?
Have you also notice how they trot our tiresome alarmist nonsense about past communist regimes and other political apocalyptical notions.
Do you notice how they use the same discredited anti-AGW pseudo-science arguments. Do you notice how they are not up-to-date with the acience or literature and parrot what bunk they’re told by shonk central.
And that that they also may optionally subscribe to quack theories like overthrowing the laws of thermodynamics, abiogenic petroluem, anti-tectonic plate theory and a seeming inability to even undertake the calculation of an arithmetic mean.
And have you noticed that despite espousing freedom of speech these guys like to use legally dubious methods to investigate people’s privacy.
Yes folks there are some real nasty creeps and loopies out there.
No.
John Quiggin is running with the bulls on Exxon;
http://tinyurl.com/yawjjf
Maybe he hasnt read all the response;
“AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY
From Aynsley Kellow [aynsley.kellow@utas.edu.au]
Dear Mr Ward,
I must say I was somewhat amazed at your letter to Nick Thomas of ExxonMobil of 4 September. That such an august institution as the Royal Society is attempting to suppress scientific argument is one thing, and that it relies upon notions of corporate influence that would flunk any reasonable examination in political science yet another.
I could write you a lengthy discourse on what is wrong with your line of reasoning, touching on the $1 billion Exxon is spending on its own corporate response to climate change, the amount it donates to Stanford University alone to research solutions (an order of magnitude larger than that your analysis indicates Exxon provided to organisations you consider ‘misinformed’ the public), and so on. I will save such an analysis for my own research on the politics of climate science, for which your letter will constitute an excellent example of attempts to suppress dissent.
Instead, let me address the basis of your claims about the IPCC – and here I write as an expert reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
You take issue with Exxon’s statement that the IPCC relies for its conclusions ‘on expert judgment rather than objective, reproducible statistical methods.’ You cite a conclusion to Ch12 of TAR stating that ‘most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greeenhouse gas concentration.’ You do not seem to appreciate that Working Group I adopted quite specific meanings, specified in the Summary for Policy Makers, where expressions such as ‘likely’ quite explicitly refer to the subjective level of confidence of the Chapter Lead Authors.
‘Likely’ quite specifically means that the Lead Authors believe there is a 66-90% chance that the science is true. The Exxon statement in its Corporate Citizenship Report that you cite is thus entirely consistent with the IPCC conclusion that you cite.
Sadly, we have now reached the point where the Royal Society is a less reliable source of scientific advice than Exxon Mobil. A sad day indeed.
I am copying this letter to Benny Peiser, who runs an excellent newsletter on such issues.
Yours,
Professor Aynsley Kellow
School of Government
University of Tasmania”
Yea bleat on Rog – Exxon deserves a right royal rounds of the kitchen. Shonk central I’m afraid.
And getting to be an IPCC reviewer ain’t that hard ! Comments may or may not be well received. Benny Peiser ROFTL.
Go Quiggy !
I read something interesting on Greenland ice cap today in my local paper.
According to Science it seems like the melt down of glaciers have slowned down a bit…and according to thhe climate model a thickening ( note this) of the ice cap will occur in inner Greenland due to warmer climate.
And a thinning of the coastal ice edge. ( This is from my paper , don’t know how accurat this article is however).
Ann
Article says:
Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations
S. B. Luthcke, H. J. Zwally, W. Abdalati, D. D. Rowlands, R. D. Ray, R. S. Nerem, F. G. Lemoine, J. J. McCarthy, and D. S. Chinn
Published online 19 October 2006: Science
Mass changes of the Greenland ice sheet resolved by drainage system (DS) regions are derived from a local mass concentration analysis of the GRACE mission gravity observations. During 2003-2005, the ice sheet lost 101±16 Gt/yr with a gain of 54 Gt/yr above 2000 m and a loss of 155 Gt/yr at lower elevations. The lower elevations show a large seasonal cycle with mass losses during summer melting followed by gains from fall through spring. The overall rate of loss reflects a considerable change in trend (-113 ± 17 Gt/yr) from a near balance of the 1990’s, but is smaller than some other recent estimates.
During the 1990s the observed thinning at the margins and the growth inland were both expected responses to climate warming. Our new results suggest that the processes of significant ice depletion at the margins, through melting and glacier acceleration, are beginning to dominate the interior growth as climate warming has continued.
Hmmmm, links at 40 paces. I like this bit of journo handiwork…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html
“Some Glaciers Growing Due to Climate Change, Study Suggests
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
September 11, 2006
Some glaciers in Pakistan’s Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause.
The glacial growth bucks a global trend of shrinking ice fields and may shed light on the regionally varying effects of Earth’s changing climate.
But the region’s winter snowfall, which feeds the glaciers, has been increasing. And average summer temperatures, which melt snow and glaciers, have been dropping.
“One of the surprising results we found was a downward trend in summer temperatures,” said David Archer, study co-author and a hydrologist at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom…..”
Quick Luke, google “Newcastle University + Exxon”…..
Rog – the Newcastle one was a bit obtuse. UK or down your way? You may have to guide dear reader.
But if you’re going to say “they’re doing some really good shite in some applied area of research” – well good on them.
But they have been involved in some fairly dubious stuff on the shonky anti-AGW side.
So we have Exxon also pouring money into alternative energy while simultaneously decrying the need for any action. Strike you as a bit odd? A bet each way perhaps?
Was it Lenin who said “the capitalists would sell us the rope with which we will hang them. .. ..”
Rog on Pakistan – excellent article – I got a perspective on some of the complexities and reminded how atypical these results are:
Your reference said:
“The data also reveal another climatic oddity—a change in the basin’s diurnal temperature range, or the span between daytime high and nighttime low temperatures for a given day.
“There’s a large increase in the diurnal temperature range observed in all seasons and in all the annual data sets,” Archer said.
“In most parts of the world there’s been a decrease in diurnal temperature change, and this is what’s being predicted by global climate-change models.”
All together, the area’s regional variations are at odds with most glaciated regions worldwide, including the Eastern Himalaya, where glaciers have been shrinking significantly.
Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist and glacier expert at Ohio State University in Columbus, thinks the latest findings might be a short-term trend only.
“My guess is that the glaciers in [Haley and Fowler’s] area of study might find short-term benefit where increased winter snowfall outweighs summer melt,” Thompson said.
“[But] it’s likely these glaciers will follow the same pattern of those in Sweden and Norway, which were growing until 1999 due to increasing winter snowfall even as temperatures rose.
“However, since 1999 these same glaciers are now retreating.
“The balance of glaciers globally shows retreat and even acceleration in the rate of retreat,” Thompson stressed. (Related news: “Greenland Glaciers Losing Ice Much Faster, Study Says” [February 2006].)
It may take many years to understand climate change’s lasting effects on Pakistan’s glaciers.”
And thanks for reminding me of breaking events last week. A really really good explanation of what’s happening to Antarctica – AGW all the way I’m afraid! And I was trying to tell you blokes about the ozone involvement just a few days ago too. Also why the polar interior stays cold.
16 October 2006
The first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is published this week in the Journal of Climate. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (Belgium) reveal that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.
Global warming and the ozone hole have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2 km-high mountain chain. On days when this happens in summer temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5 degrees C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.
Lead author Dr Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey said,
“This is the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity. Climate change does not impact our planet evenly – it changes weather patterns in a complex way that takes detailed research and computer modelling techniques to unravel. What we’ve observed at one of the planet’s more remote regions is a regional amplifying mechanism that led to the dramatic climate change we see over the Antarctic Peninsula.”
Sorry Luke, you are unsure of their identity but you are sure of their credibility?
(they have been involved in some fairly dubious stuff on the shonky anti-AGW side)
Actually it was Stalin and the full quote is “When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use”
Stalin was too busy hanging his own to notice the USSR being hoisted by his own petard.
There is a global glacier monitoring organisation, based in Switzerland
http://www.wgms.ch/index.html
Rog – good to see that you are a student of the Soviets.
Whose identity am I unsure?
Glad to see you’re tapping into glaciers at source !
Rog – wasn’t meaning Newcastle ??
Luke said “getting to be an IPCC reviewer ain’t that hard” does that mean the IPCC is than a fraud full of unworthies or is Lukie just upset because he couldn’t make the grade and get on the gravy train.
Well DEF my little alphabetical quirk I think you’ll find there is no gravy in the IPCC “train” as you seem to be accustomed to in your own morally bankrupt existence. Just because one makes review comments doesn’t mean they reach the cutting room floor thanks heavens. It requires intellectual insight, ability and an appeal to logic which you demonstrably have not experienced. I think you are unkind inferring any members of the NZ climate coalition are frauds and unworthies.
Let us take the following to be true *arguendo*:
“Lead author Dr Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey said,
“This is the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity. Climate change does not impact our planet evenly – it changes weather patterns in a complex way that takes detailed research and computer modelling techniques to unravel. What we’ve observed at one of the planet’s more remote regions is a regional amplifying mechanism that led to the dramatic climate change we see over the Antarctic Peninsula.””
Apart from the fact that it’s nearly, if not actually, self-contradictory, there’s no indication that the break-up of the Larsen shelf is worth anything more than academic interest.
This statement is one of the most blatant pieces of personal ignorance I have ever seen on this blog. “Apart from the fact that it’s nearly, if not actually, self-contradictory, there’s no indication that the break-up of the Larsen shelf is worth anything more than academic interest”. There is no science in this private sentiment. Lets see if we have a harmony of voids to follow.
Schiller withdraws into denial.