I’m copying this comment by David from an earlier thread:
“In democracy, we tolerate MMR vaccine deniers, AGW deniers, GM deniers, fluoride deniers, water recycling deniers, abortion choice deniers, Inconvenient Truth deniers, Al Gore is an ecological scholar deniers, God deniers, synthetic chemical deniers, stem cell deniers, IVF deniers, convential medicine deniers, food crisis deniers, oil crisis deniers, biofuel deniers, windmill for electricity deniers, computer simulation of the real world deniers, Catholic Church infallibility deniers (who are protestant), Islam deniers (who are Catholic), Jesus deniers ( who are Jewish), Jewish deniers who are Jewish, Aussie deniers who are Islamic, Gaia deniers, chiroropractic and iridology deniers, Rupert Murdoch deniers, socialism deniers, free-market choice deniers, electric pylon magnetic radiation deniers (who still use mobile phones to complain about the pylons), DDT stops malaria deniers, DDT causes cancer deniers, DDT causes endocrine disruption deniers, natural lavender extracts cause endocrine disruption deniers, natural plant contain cancer causing chemical denier, microwave deniers, industrial agriculture and fertiliser to save the forrest and the atmosphere deniers, conservation tillage deniers, what you read in the newspapers is all true deniers, Fairfax press deniers, Andrew Bolt knows something about global warning deniers, and their all ok, except AGW deniers who are evil and immoral according to David Suzuki.
Thank goodness we are wealthy and can live with denial. But I know its hard sometimes, trust me on this.“
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Nah….AGW deniers aren’t evil. Just wrong.
I did post this last week but it seems to match nicely with David’s sentiments…
“Humanity seems to have an insistent need for an impending disaster to give focus to life. Perhaps this characteristic evolved in the eras of struggle to survive and it became inate. Wherever it came from, that characteristic is now interfering in the process of spreading unprecedented prosperity around the globe. To verify this assertion, visit any reputable book shop. In the non-fiction shelves you will find endless rows of books about impending or historic disasters, but very few expressing optimism about the future of humankind. Even scientists have joined the pessimists and regard predictions as inevitable and impossible to divert. In large measure, this is a consequence of the ‘fourth estate’, because as everyone knows, good news does not sell newspapers (or tv news and current affairs programmes)”
{David Robertson 2006, International Economics and confusing politics}
I just started reading this book and this is the opening paragraph……an awful lot of truth in it it seems to me!?
By the way Ian Castles and David Tribe…David Robertson sends his regards…..and Ian I suggested he might like to read some of these blogs before your meeting next month.
I have often wondered if we had to have David Attenborough, tit deep in a swamp, or Suzuki, panting up a hill, to get their message across. After all, either of them produce more Co2 in a year than I will in my life time. Perhaps they could pollute a little less, & still produce their pretty films. It would be more likely to convert me, if they did.
I am even more offended, when some rock singer, who has spent his life, gallivanting around the country, consuming huge resources, & encouraging millions of others to produce massive amounts of Co2, to get to his concerts, starts to tell me to consume less.
David says “Thank goodness we are wealthy and can live with denial. But I know its hard sometimes, trust me on this.”
In detecting a wee bit of emotion here I recommend Detribe retires with a small companion. IMHO Cats are more demanding individuals than dogs. Either way, campaigners need to know when they are licked.
Surely you do not just want ‘yes men’ around Gavin? In the case of AGW he may be wrong, I’d suggest on GM he is not. The world needs contrarians and deep thinkers, if for nothing else than to make the ‘majority’ think more deeply and justifiably about their own thoughts.
Judging by his ‘profile’ it seems clear the world could use more people who actually do constructive things to make the world a better place, rather than preach ( I’m not suggesting you also do not ‘do’ Gavin)…it also needs people like Luke who can debate soundly the other side and help people form more knowledgeable opinions.
By the way in the financial markets when everybody starts talking the same story it is time to get out and bet the other way!
Toby: The only thing I’m fighting is the elitism that goes with a certain brand of academia. I grew up surrounded by some very interesting characters who greatly improved our farming with hardly a shred of paper behind them. They were both innovative and low cost.
I also had a lot of exposure to primary produce processing where I had direct contact with most of their technology.
There are many ways to improve our industries if we allow them improve themselves. Some of the benefits quoted for GM are likely to be the same other crops managed in the same way. I simply want to know who is pulling the reins, our farmers or some German, UK, Swiss or US chemical company who want to flog a non edible substance in “our” best interest.
Toby, I learned to read between the lines. To me, Australian farmers have lived for decades through our ABC. See Rural legends for self made men who made a difference. One of my customers on the back blocks was having a struggle paying even small bills. After he went totally organic he hardly owed a cent. Unfortunately his neighbors keep chuckling up their sleeves. Half my clients went into receivership every year.
One thing nobody can deny: David Tribe has too much spare time on his hands.
Well put Dave – ” Celebrate Diversity ” is a catch-cry for many on the “we’ll all be rooned” side until it comes to opinions which challenge ( even wrongly perhaps) their comfortable four legs good two legs bad mantra. Then absolute uniformity is the order of the day!
I have a brother who thinks Peter Garrett and Bob Brown are the only honest and ethical politicians in Australia. Ditto for Greenpeace as an organisation. He believes that every political/military/environmental/social/economic disaster of the last decade can be laid personally at the feet of John Howard and George Bush.
I try to point out that having such passions is OK but disguising them with supposedly objective analysis perhaps isn’t.
The vehemence with which contrarians are disparaged ( comparisons with creationists , constant accuations of hidden agendas etc) shows an inability to tolerate different opinions and/or a real fear of challenge.
We’re told the science behind AGW theory is overwhelming – if that’s so then a few lone dissidents don’t threaten anyone.
Jim: The theory is overwhelming. It’s a done deal.Q.E.D. So why the hyperbole? Such as Tim Flannery saying imagine an 8 story building being covered with water. At the present rate of sea level rise that would take 70,000 years.
The temperature is rising by fractions of a degree,the sea level by millimetres,the co2 by parts per million but we are doomed(unless we pay carbon tax)
Did they forget to tell us about the meteor on its way
Gavin,I agree with much of what you say and suspect so would David(Fighting elitism in acade mia, helping to improve industries,being innovative, the possibility of making a profit by being organic) there are many ways for our industries to improve themselves…and allowing them to be innovative in their methods of raising production/ quality is crucial. Nothing is without risk and it is essential we never become ‘beholden’ to a foreign chemical company, but GM food has enourmous potential surely? Its been consumed for years with no ill effects. Effective Australian farmers have always had to adapt and be innovative, if GW/CC does get nasty (Human or natural or both)lets try not to hold them back under the ‘no risk’ banner!
“We’re told the science behind AGW theory is overwhelming – if that’s so then a few lone dissidents don’t threaten anyone.”- Well said, Jim!
Speaking – well it all a bit depressing now that the Stern report is out and all the denialists are vanquished.
We’re returning to more elementary interests like genetically engineering C4 photosynthetic pathways into C3 plants for sport. But it’s not really the same thrill is it as pooning a few denialist newbs.
Sigh ! There’s probably little to carry on arguing about. Is it even worth soldiering on?
I guess there’s the Cup next week – might provide a small social relief – do the roses make the cup a carbon neutral event. Are the roses organic or do they spray the shit out of them with some dreaded thrips-nuking Rog-icide or Schiller-ent. Have you ever wondered why one thrips is still a thrips. You can see I’m at a low ebb.
Are the horses on a low methane producing diet?
And I am a tad worried about all these walks for Global Warming. Should we not be encouraging those people to stay home, lie down and try not to respire too much CO2. No more fun runs either. And hold those tummy rumbles in. Keep constipated and geosequester longer.
Quite liked the denialists really. Had some good parties. Do contrarians have more fun and well as denying? Do they get on the piss more? Given they’re all dreadfully right wing they definitely wouldn’t be having a big reefer or dropping ecy tabs.
Strange you know that they never gave us a run on QBO and solar or a long cycle ocean mechanism, but went for long shots like cosmic rays and really crap stuff. If there’s a horse called Cosmic Ray of Denialist in the Cup I’m putting a shitload on. Did once with a horse called El Nino and did my dinars.
Some of the troops have been known to put a big bet on to fund temporary staff when the funding grants dry up. But I’m getting melancholy and I digress.
But anyway that’s all history now – nothing for it but to sit here and warm up I guess.
Might rain too. Or might not .. ..
I’ve had time to read and enjoy Christopher Hitchens’ Letters to a Young Contrarian: The Art of Mentoring. Now there’s a book, for you. And a man too, a wordsmith and hard smoker to boot – yes indeed, contrarians have more fun. Their not like borin’ old Luke with no sense of irony.
GMO Pundit.
No time for analysis, but worth a read. I often say that global warming grabs for money need to be weighed against alternative uses of that money–like education and medical research.
Climate Non-Conformity
Saving lives versus saving planet Earth.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009181
I’ve found something to cheer Luke up. That Inconvenient Contrarian Mr Lomborg discussing Mr N. Stern in that flimsy rag the WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
Well how about that. Almost a double post. As Dame Edna would say: spooky
It’s obvious that doomsday prophecies are big sellers. This acts as a subsidy for contrarians.
Furthermore, it’s generally easier to be against things than *for* things. Anyone can be a critic and it doesn’t take much smarts to be one. This leads to the emergence of lazy contrarians.
When you have a system that subsidizes lazy contrarians, you are destined to find lots of them.
eg contrarians against climate change, against cimate scientists, against sceptics, against science rather than 3rd hand political rhetoric, against research that suggests the current socioeconomic models are widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and doomsday prophecies about economic ruin if we meet Kyoto without any substance to back it
the point, as I take it (and detribe will tell me off if I missed it) is that somewhere between the extremes the truth often lies. Interpreting that point narrowly to maintain a rigid, uncompromising position makes you the subject matter of the point
My point pinksi winksie is a rather old one, (I think originating with David Hume, or at least one of the British philosophers), is that moral sentiments intervene to trump rationality. The reason that Susuki is using the moral shaming approach on GHG is that it enables him to influence public opinon, not because he’s necessarily right. It a rather odd thing for someone originally trained as a scientist to do.
And today, there are many substantially similar issues which are faring very differently in public opinion polls but not necessarliy based on clear objective or empirical evidence.
Synthetic pesticides are demonised but natural pesticides are lionised as health enhancing yet both have the potential to be carcingens or endocrines disruptants. Synthetic pesticides are the emotianal standard bearers of the early environmental movements, and the evolving science about their relative safety is largly ignored because it’s inconvenient.
On another tack, agricultural biotech upsets the extreme Left, but medical stem cell type biotech is embraced by sections the left ( eg Stott Despoja [spelling!], and is abhorent to many on the protestant right and catholic left for largely emotional (spiritual, religous) reasons.
And some people get really emotional about danger of radiowaves from cellphones and power lines, or other “phantom risks” as they call them, based on flimsy evidence.
But no Pinksi I don’t adhere to the opinion that the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle between two extremes. I think the truth is sometimes surprising , often elusive, and usually needs a lot of damned hard work to find in real world problems, but these differences of opinion can help as find it if we adapt better, more open ways of listening to one another (for instance actively search for where we are wrong, and admitting it), and find out how to trust others of good will, because both sides of opinion may contain elements of the best policy.
PS Re “Middle Ground”
Nature Biotechnology Editorial October 2006 Which is about the public silence of scientists. Its pivotal point is, “In public forums and in politics, the debate is not about convincing your opponents of the error of their ways. It is about establishing your arguments and your position in the center ground. Silence, nonengagement and navel gazing will not reestablish the facts about GM products in the public’s consciousness.”
Luke shows his naivety in accepting the Stern Review at face value; not a contrary bone in his body when it comes to documents bearing the seal of Her Majesty.
Richard Tol thinks the Stern review is a royal crock;
“Conclusion
In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.
This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/sternreview.doc
Luke: Why we bother is as her with the day job says, our grandchildren. However we have another problem. Lego have announced they are out of stock on their most popular items this season. Wise one has a good selection from recent garage sales round about. Recycling is still my big biz.
The smart one over breakfast “We are spoiled” as ABC relates to local power failures.
Yesterday I witnessed another one of these weird storms I write about. Despite the warnings of thunderstorms and rain my place was hit with a solid wall of dust about 3pm. The fury lasted only ten minutes then we had a period of nice sunshine . This morning I attempted to photograph the heavier debris. What a mess! The last time we had one of these wild events the whole sky was on fire over parliament house. I bet some people are still shaking from that one.
The good news is; the NSW Rural Fire Chief, Phil Koperberg has finally put his hand up for the ALP and a seat in the Blue Mountains. Everyone should do well out of his move say no more.
Rog shows his bias by assuming that Luke has uncritically accepted Stern – did I say that?
But we do have more economists well off the reservation.
Stern’s wrong no matter what! I’m going dig around the internets ’till I find some one who agrees (which will be in a newspaper editorial, of course). I’m not going to read Stern myself, just like I’m not going to bother reading papers on climate computer modeling, ice-shelf collapse etc. There just wrong, wrong, wrong….There’s not even any cohesive CO2 in the atmosphere!! It’s all for grants. I know for a fact most climate scientists are billionaires who are just tricking everyone so they can buy cheap island real-estate on the great barrier reef.
Oh hang on, early in the morning. Forgot I was on the reality-based side.
Toby; In the scramble for public money due to a sudden upsurge in political interest over climate change etc after the Stern report I will do my best to keep science in it’s normal place just following events after they occur because the real business of risk taking is not in their kit bag. That is the rightful job of experienced engineers, trades, technicians, farmers and so on. My money if I had any would be on them as a group and from experience the odds are good.
Detribe says “And some people get really emotional about danger of radiowaves from cellphones and power lines, or other “phantom risks” as they call them, based on flimsy evidence” Lets have another look into our culture at the risk of being boring since detribe raises this stuff over and over.
Toby: Public overexposure to forces unseen was at times my specialty. It was my unofficial job to find the phantom force then estimate the long term danger. My method before our science caught up was to issue hot tips, not reports as reports can be dangerous in themselves. I still reckon science was my understudy. Allow me to exaggerate a little to illustrate after I say there were many other technical types similarly involved.
We could use most of the cases mentioned in the thread head starting with say power lines. My mate bought a new spec built house under the high voltage power lines in Ringwood after he won a packet on the GG’s. It was built partially beyond the Vic state guidelines and was therefore hard to sell. Thinking his luck may run out I had less than a week to do a review of the literature for his legal guru.
He was an amateur herbalist and budding naturopath frequently engaged in rebuilding broken track animals. I won them over with a simple comment, there were at that time hundreds of long term SECV employees working in the Latrobe Valley with their backs close to his energy supply. Guess who, became my right hand man in the RMIT-union campaign to study noise versus avoidable deafness? Bill had a brand new stereo installed under the SECV transmission lines. We both fronted the Arbitration Commission as observers too many times. Recognizing who became deaf and where due to our modern living, was a long battle of wits indeed.
To be brief there was plenty of time to review the available literature on my other big work issues such as, chlorination & fluoridation even the impact of drugs on public health. Readers may be interested that I picked a trend it seems a very long time ago now, persistent pot heads become persistent problems for themselves and families when they can’t complete their uni studies.
When I stuck my neck out against a particular drift in politics, a wall of protest fell on it.
Toby; how smart are we, is always a good question at home.
When Dick Tracy’s mate employed me to do odd jobs around the house someone at the top asked for a review of the evidence on overexposure to their new communications. Toby; no hot tips were available. The SECV was history, RMIT was busy writing up. CSIRO were blank as was ANU. Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone etc did not want to know. I found some interesting stories: one chap sat on his gear to hide it, blokes in uniform kept warm by the radar antenna….I wrote a tiny report. Someone had to trust my judgment with out science.
At radio frequencies our exposure is all about good plumbing.
Nexus might like to read the bit in the Stern report about how climate change will influence gender inequality and then wonder about reality.
Nexus: When you wake up, just review the evidence under your nose. My place can remain a mess while it’s too damp to burn.
ABC radio runs a regular interview with our political masters. Our local boss was on early fielding questions on water. Although we use less than 1% of the country’s major catchment’s we return half as high class effluent to the big river. Our dams therefore act as a reservoir for down stream users in drought. Apparently no other Australian city is as efficient when considering a closed system. That’s good engineering.
My question to the blog is about deploying more private tanks and bores in this region. Do we help or hinder users downstream as we grow?
Rog, Check my blog (you may not like the tone I suspect): http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/11/right-kills-stern-review-dead-has-way.html
If you’ve been to a few developing countries you will understand why this is an ugly reality. I’ve seen it from Egypt to Vietnam – women get a raw deal at the lower socioeconomic end of the scale.
What do you put your perceptions of women down to, climate change?
No rog. It’s fairly obvious Stern is saying problems caused by climate change could exacerbate inequality in developing countries, not cause it. Perhaps you could explain why you think that would not be the case?
Bob Carter has a piece on the Stern Report, in The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html
I like his use of the word “warmaholics”. Not quite as pejorative as the term “denialists”, with its deliberate conflation of climate skeptics and Holocaust deniers, but it does conjure a picture of fuzzy minds in denial (hah!) and refusing to face reality.
is the point resting on something as noble as philosophy detribe, or something as commonplace as marketing and consumer behaviour? we have lots of subtle and not-so subtle marketing tactics that tug at our emotions and build increasingly complex messages that instil layers of meaning over time to create a powerful cumulative impact. Emotion and fear-based campaigning isn’t only about environmental issues or potential natural catastrophies, but also at the root of personal consumption and economic growth. Just that the latter type of marketing is effectively now so pervasive and ‘normal’ that it’s become an invisible and mostly unquestioned part of our ‘superior’ modern culture. The ‘truth’ is revealed by voting choices in marketplaces.
I am particularly interested in what GW sceptics think the way forward is on this issue. What would need to emerge (presumably by doing more science) for you to change your opinion? I am also interested in where you stand on the issue…. For example, you may be happy with the idea of AGW but reject cutting CO2 because it won’t achieve anything…or may see AGW as being beneficial….others may think it’s all crap and based purely on dodgy science etc.
I invited the sceptics in a fairly recent thread to clarify the nature and extent of their scepticism and 1 or 2 obliged (partially). I’m keen to hear the responses to Andy’s question too (genuine interest, no intention to hassle).
I’d also like to understand what AP6 supporters who are Kyoto critics think AP6 is likely to achieve in terms of real outcomes.
I’m still very depressed that it’s all over.
A whithering limp lettuce attack by Bob Carter – you tell his heart wan’t in it .. .. I guess he’s trying to hold back the vast onslaught of public and scientific opinion.
Perhaps Bob is sick of fruit loops – we had cherries, peas, grapes, kiwi fruit and bananas in his rebuttal. A veritable fructivorous feast. Anyway award honours to Bob for the “Denialists’ Horatio on the Bridge Award”.
Maybe denialism isn’t sexy anymore – Bob resorting to use of dildos in his puff piece.
What are we going to fight about now that AGW is all over and cut and dried.. ..
Wish the Cup would hurry up and happen. Feeling bored. Might pick a fight with Pinxi.
Hey Pinx – step outside and defend your philosophical position on defence of nurserymen!
Now that it’s all over I’m going to take a course in computer climate modelling. Then I’ll be able to prove anything!
Does TAFE have a course?
Whilst ‘you scientists’ who have persuaded us that the evidence is really overwhelming for AGW would I am sure like to be wrong for the sake of humanity…if you are wrong will scientists ever be listened to again?? It still seems to me it remains reasonable to be sceptical of climate models….but not so of the anecdotal evidence. Climate is not linear, all you can do is tweak the models to make them fit what you know…we are always finding new things. Nobody is doubting GW but how much is AGW is not, and probably can not be proved.
It is interesting that despite the debate being ‘over’ I can still not get anybody to make a bet with me showing odds that indicate any degree of certainty in the theory of AGW and its ‘horrific outcomes’. julesandjames didnt want to bet….wouldn t even show me odds!
Pinxi…what would/is Kyoto achieving?
Whilst ‘you scientists’ who have persuaded us that the evidence is really overwhelming for AGW would I am sure like to be wrong for the sake of humanity…if you are wrong will scientists ever be listened to again?? It still seems to me it remains reasonable to be sceptical of climate models….but not so of the anecdotal evidence. Climate is not linear, all you can do is tweak the models to make them fit what you know…we are always finding new things. Nobody is doubting GW but how much is AGW is not, and probably can not be proved.
It is interesting that despite the debate being ‘over’ I can still not get anybody to make a bet with me showing odds that indicate any degree of certainty in the theory of AGW and its ‘horrific outcomes’. julesandjames didnt want to bet….wouldn t even show me odds!
Pinxi…what would/is Kyoto achieving?
Toby:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html
&
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
Luke, there’s always GM and DDT. Or maybe crashing global fisheries? Surely that’s a Leftist conspiracy.
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2006/11/03/fish-stock-reduction/
Paul, I don’t think they run climate modelling courses at TAFE. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t get a high enough HSC score to make it into Uni as you can always resit your HSC at TAFE and go from there into a science degree.
Thank you Simon, I have been to the site before and emailed julesandjames. I believe that the odds they are looking to give do not indicate an overwhelming belief in AGW and the guardian article misrepresents the meaning from the information stated. An evens bet indicates a 50/50 probabilty. I remain a little sceptical that it is human induced (not a lot)rather than just part of the natural cycle however since nearly ‘everybody’ is so convinced of the science for AGW then the odds for me to bet on it not being should be pretty good surely? ie if it is certain then at least 100/1. It is the sceptics who need the odds in their favour…they don t say its not happening just that it may not be human induced. On the other hand the ‘scientists and their models’ appear quite certain?! Jules and James have in my opinion demonstrated that they are not certain of the facts at all because they do not want to have a bet with me. I do not blame them I do not think they can be certain and if they are not risk takers then its perfectly reasonable not to show me a price. However it does ‘prove’ as much as anything can, that there is still doubt….in particular how much warming we may see.
Please note since I do not think we can place much faith in the models themselves I would accept it could get even hotter than the worst case scenarios. It does appear from some of the links posted on the Stern report however that using the models that we have he is predicting doomsday scenarios and the costs associated.
Yet again I have to ask why exagerate things if the evidence really is so overwehelming? Bad news sells right?
How many of you are optimistic about the future?Humans have always adapted to the problems thrown our way (human or natural).
Personally I am far more worried about the problems originating in the Middle East destroying the world than I am of warming!(And I am hopeful commonsense will eventually win over in the ME!)
I note Gavin you are optimistic…and good onya!
Sorry though I got lost in much of the rest of your post? Very happy to discuss away from the blog so we do not put people to sleep.
(tobyrobertson@hotkey.net.au)
Toby what exactly would your bet be? It appears that you question the relationship between CO2 and temperature change, the “main” forcing of current climate models? Is that correct? You don’t question that’s it’s getting warmer and that humans probably have soemething to do with it but you are saying that the future temperatures may be less than, equal to or more than that predicted by those presented in the IPCC?
Simon, I am not really sure what sort of odds would be required to persuade me to bet, but I am very interested in seeing the odds offered by people who seem to imply their is no doubt over AGW and significant temperature increases in the future. I am not convinced that we know how much weighting to give to C02 as opposed to other ‘greenhouse’ gases,water vapour in particular, nor their impact at different concentration levels. I know Luke will be able to ( often has) point me towards all sorts of peer reviewed papers, but somebody else will be able to show me stuff that seems equally plausible.
I do not deny the world has got warmer, and sadly I am increasingly believing that humans are the cause of at least part of this. But given the complexities of the atmosphere and planet I still hold out hope that the recent warming is just part of a cycle/s that relate to some things we understand and others things we do not yet understand.
And yes to your last question, including being cooler.
The point I was trying to make is that unless the odds are significant we need to be very careful about weighing up the costs of what we do (anywhere from a little to a lot)and not allowing the doomsday scenarios to dominate debate.
If we really think co2 is to blame and the effects will be disastrous then someone better quickly get the price of petrol/ fossil fuels much higher and bugger the consequences as the worlds economies collapse and many people with them…….but how much control over what has been done do we really have? could it be something else we have or have not ‘done’ that hasnt been thought of yet? Are we kidding ourselves something can be done if it is co2?
would it be more effective to adapt and let technology naturally take its course as our fossil fuels run out if co2 is the cause?
I don t know these answers, I just think they are important to be asked. I also think it is important to recognise that this planet of ours is incredibly complicated and frequently not predictable.
Oh and of course if the odds look tasty I love a bet!
Sad to say for the AGW religion but AIG News will shortly publish two short articles demolishing the CO2 drives temperature argument.
Whether or not it will will not matter – at least not to the faithful who will continue to believe.
I’ll publish a note when it does appear online, sometime middle of November to late November.
That the debate as descended to calling climate sceptics holocaust deniers and every other nasty perjoration merely proves we have entered into the start of another dark age.
No comments to this will be bothered with either.
Dear Reader,
Strange that Louis Hissink (if that is his real name – might have to get a few contacts to check) would have his glass jaw broken by a few “off comments” from over-emotional AGW supporters – when he single-handedly maintained an entire blog that on a daily basis blasted anyone who even looked twice at any AGW material as a commo, pinko, leftie, subversive, Pol Pot supporter, deviant, totalitarian lickspittle etc etc. And that was just warming up. His last sentence above indicates he is returning to true form (which is good to see – Louis was almost talking to us on another thread before he gave himself a good bitch-slapping and came to his senses).
Apparently Realclimate have had a leak about the AIG News onslaught and are bracing themselves for resisting laughter when being tickled by feather dusters. They’re on red alert. Maybe even DefCon 4.
It must be a problem for the old cranky geologists who read AIG News (Someone said that only disaffected old fogies read it but I couldn’t vouch for that)to find that the AGW fever has swept the world and ignored their best denialist arguments.
End Footnote.
Luke
Just for here, how old are you ?
For those with the “A” affliction, Luke has retired to collect his memories and will report here when he has done so.
Assuming of course that Luke remembers his post here.
Paul I found a climate modelling course free in the cornflakes packet. It came with a neat diagram and key points summarised on a shrinkie to attach to your keyring (no need to oven shrink, GW does it for you)
toby it’s not relevant or interesting what impact I expect from Kyoto. The question was why people who reject Kyoto back AP6. If Kyoto targets shouldn’t be met because it wouldn’t have an impact or allegedly would bankrupt the economy (pessimistic doomsday scenario), why back AP6?. What impact do they expect from AP6? Why back AP6 and not Kyoto, in terms of real outcomes? Australia’s solution so far is centralised planning, not a market-based solution. Those Europeans who get accused of being socialists with learning disabilities at least introduced market mechanisms!
Louis is as miserable and without purpose as yourself now Luke. I suggest work is done, retirement to enjoy sunset years on a high rocky knoll overlooking sea, with new hobby of measuring crustacean and egg shell thickness. Alternatively, you and Louis could come together to jointly consult to guide the IPA’s new GW partyline.
Pinxi
Had too many Vodka Martini’s ?
Oh, and Luke, will I see you at the Walk tomorrow? (Don’t wear stilettos & fishnets this time).
Lukey, what personal, voluntary steps have you taken to reduce yr GHG emissions? Have you contacted yr pollies? Using renewable energy? Turned off the fridge? Given up paper? Moved into a tent? Only buying local? Given up meat? Volunteered for your local NFP? Stood on street corners in a fluffy animal suit holding out a moneybox?
Leuke and Peeensie,
Been there, done that – you lot are predictable – stupidity and all.
No offense, but you are what some of us call “Mungos”.
too few Louis
Vodka Martini’s are for pretentious wannabes
been there, done what exactly Louis? Perhaps you misread and thought I wrote “IPA pantyline”?
we know you take your own words lightly Louisje, so why should anyone else given them anymore weight?
“No comments to this will be bothered with either.”
Pls stick to yr promises
I knew he’d respond. Hehehehee.
I reckon Pinx, Louis and I should have a night out on the town to celebrate the end of the AGW debate. Perhaps a cool jazz or blues establishment? We could then take Louis to a protest meeting on something eco in the following arvo and introduce him to some of your rasta mates. He’d get a charge out of that.
Actually given the IPA are probably about to change horses on the AGW debate and gun the AP6 argument – we could contract our prodigious intellectual talent and give them a hand. You know – edit a few press releases – get the facts straight etc.
hook line and sinkers
hook, line & hissinkers
Pinx – I’m never been so bloody insulted. I’m down to one 40 watt bulb, not using the washing machine, this latop is powered by bicycle, and I try to stay in bed longer and minimise personal respiration, sex is out – too much CO2 production, I put all my veges in my trolley at the organic shop and peddle it home. We only flush the toilet every second day. At work I’ve turned the NEC supercomputer down to 2 processors and rewritten the GCM kernel to only use half the memory. And we’ve rescheduled the collective to now meet only every 6 weeks to avoid extra travel.
And that is not enough for you?!
shop? I thought you were only consuming yr own homegrown sprouts?
And yr no longer flinging yr chamber pot contents onto the street at night for the pigs?
This will be probably get deleted, but its worth the effort to thank you guys for the ride.
Luke and Pinxi – you are friggin legends!
“What are we going to fight about now that AGW is all over and cut and dried.. ..”
Only a few days ago Luke you said that certainty was approaching?
Can I interpret your comment above to mean that it’s now arrived?
And I thought Stern was just about the economics of it all…..
I’ll have to read the entire report rather than the ES to find this evidence which puts paid to all doubt!
Is it really 700 odd pages long?
The Birth of the Son of Climate change denial is Nigh: Climate Chaos and Catastrophe denial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm
dtribe has actually highlighted a new religious development in the West. Previously the call was “repent sinners, or you will be doomed!” Those who had seen the Light carried their “the end of the world is nigh” placard and made assorted attempts to convert agnostics and atheists. There was the Church and to deviate from its doctrinal purity was to sin. The New Church is closer to fundamentalist Islam than the old Church. The call is “repent sinners, or we will all be doomed!” Hence, there can be no place for agnostics or atheists for any such dissent from orthodoxy is causing the doom that the “saved” so fervently wish to avoid by their purity. If only there were no agnostics and atheists, the cool Promised Land would be realised here on earth. While science teaches its followers to be skeptical, the New Church teaches its followers the opposite. But while in the West the New Church can marshall comfortable devotees to march for the Cause, will they find many followers in the more hard nosed East?