Tonights airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimise scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless.
Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators. We have the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (BAMOS), which was in such a hurry to publish a critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle that it contains schoolboy howlers and a lack of logic intertwined with politics.
What makes it even more amusing is that BAMOS did not criticise Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If this Hollywood fiction film claims to be supported by science, then why did it perpetuate a well-documented scientific fraud?
There is no panel discussion when the ABC TV religiously promotes the popular political view on global warming. Why is there a panel for an alternative view?
Science is married to evidence, scepticism and dissent. This evidence is from experiment, measurement, observation and calculation. Scientists hotly debate the methods of acquisition of evidence. Once the evidence is validated, a scientific theory is offered as an explanation. This theory must be in accord with all previous validated data and can be changed with new data. Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost. Noise, political pressure or numbers of converts does not validate a scientific concept. When the president of the Royal Society says the science on human-induced global warming is settled, one is reminded of a previous president who said it was impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly!
Since the beginning of time, climate has always changed. It has warmed and cooled faster than any contemporary change. Nothing happening at present is unusual. The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary — life thrived.
Computer models are models, albeit primitive. They are not predictions, they are not scenarios. They don’t do clouds. They don’t do turbulence. They don’t do unseen submarine emissions of greenhouse gases. They deal only with greenhouse gas emissions from volcanos in times of little volcanic activity. They don’t do starbursts, which have probably given us the greatest climate changes on Earth. They don’t do variations in cosmic ray fluxes, which produce clouds in the lower atmosphere. They don’t do mountain building, plate tectonics and closing or opening of seaways, which have profound effects on climate.
If the conclusion that humans are changing climate by carbon dioxide emissions requires the omission of validated astronomical, palaeontologic and geological evidence, then the popular view of humans causing climate change is not science. We are seeing a revival of a form of zealous Western politics intertwined with poor theology, poor economics and poor logic.
If humans have contributed to the slight warming in the 20th century, then all theories of past climate changes need to be evaluated and discarded. This has not happened. Why is it that previous global warmings have been faster and greater than the warming that started after the Little Ice Age? Is it no surprise that the planet has become warmer after the Little Ice Age? Is it no surprise that the driver of climate has been, is and will be that great ball of heat in the centre of our solar system? If evidence from the past is used, then one can only conclude that the slight warmings and cooling in the 20th century cannot be due to carbon dioxide.
Groups like BAMOS and the IPCC deny, minimise or ignore significant recent climate changes that gave us the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Both history and archaeology show that in previous warmings, temperatures were far higher than at present. Populations and the economy thrived. Previous coolings led to famine, depopulation and social disruption. History shows that it is dangerous to ignore history.
The Renaissance gave us a system where criticism, logic, scepticism and an alternative view based on evidence were valued.
It was in this environment that democracy thrived. We are now reaping the rewards of dumbing down the education system and live at a time when it is a politically correct duty to suppress alternative views. The best way to understand climate is to critically and sceptically evaluate the evidence presented to us over a very long period of time by the heavens and the Earth beneath our feet.
Ian Plimer is emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.
First published in The Age at http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-zealots-stifling-scientific-debate/2007/07/11/1183833595634.html
Republished with permission from the author.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer: A team of scientists will critique GGWS after lunch at the JCSMR building (ANU) tomorrow. Listening to Dr Janette Lindesay on ABC am radio today I have no doubt what they will say. She virtually slammed it as nonsense.
See also SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/hot-reaction-to-climate-swindle-doco/2007/07/11/1183833580553.html
If we go back to the recent storms our people inc Dr Lindesay said quite a lot about climate change
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=561584&category=general
“The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary — life thrived.”
So Ian is saying that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been 370ppm * 100 = 3700ppm to 33 000ppm and life has thrived?? Where is the evidence for such claims? 37000ppm is approaching 3.7% at which:
“3%-5% Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5% Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse”
Is this the science that Ian is talking about?
Who were the scientists who declined to participate I wonder – and why?
I must admit I would rather see more current climate scientists on the panel while ditching the journos ( both for and against ) .
But when it’s all said and done , is it really going to make one jot of difference?
Will anyone’s view/s change as a result and if not then what does it matter if it’s screened?
Will majority scientific support for AGW change?
No.
Will the overwhelming media promotion of AGW as settled scientific fact change?
No.
Will Governments change their committments( such as they are ) to CO2 reduction / mitigation change?
No.
Many are complaining that the ABC shouldn’t promote a program containing advocacy dressed up as objectivity , however that’s the ABC’s stock in trade it’s just that this time it’s not coming out of left field.
( Poor attempt at humour!!!)
PS – Ender , I thought exactly the same myself reading ” The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure …..”
Never heard that before.
The ‘act of god’ argument. Climate has always changed, and it always it will. It will always do so for a reason. At present, the reason is us.
Ender, what a disingenuous comment.
You have described the symptoms experienced by lowlanders when they go to Bolivia,
Bolivia has an indigenous population, who experience no problems, & infact, we send our athletes to Bolivia to improve their oxygen usage capacity.
To suggest that mammals could not adapt to much higher levels of CO2, is realy grasping at straws.
Gee they’re getting the big guns out now.
Gee another version of “school boy howlers” – sounds really like Prof Carter’s text. mmmmmm
“They deal only with greenhouse gas emissions from volcanos in times of little volcanic activity.” – OK well that will make it worse.
“subamrine emissions of greenhouse gases” – worse again
“They don’t do mountain building, plate tectonics and closing or opening of seaways, which have profound effects on climate.” – this will be an issue in the next 100 years will it?
“They don’t do clouds” – errr they do – but need improvement
And 37,000 ppm CO2 – wow !
Hasbeen – by adapt I think you mean evolve. 6 billion plus humans all wheezing eh ??
http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.
ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm.
NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies between 0.03% (300 ppm) and 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on the location (see graphical map of CO2 in real-time). A person’s exhaled breath is approximately 4.5% carbon dioxide. It is dangerous when inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume, or 50,000 ppm). The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an eight-hour work day is 0.5% (5,000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less.
These figures are valid for pure carbon dioxide. In indoor spaces occupied by people the carbon dioxide concentration will reach higher levels than in pure outdoor air. Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself. At 2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality.
Luke is a prime example of a zealot.
john Laws interviewed Durkin today and I can tell you GWs got a serious pasting, particularly those that spend all their time telling people they are stupid or in denial.
Right or wrong the GWs lost that debate, particularly after Al Gore and last weeks global climate Woodstock.
Defn: Zealot: A fervent and even militant proponent of something
Actually I thought I spent most of my time telling you that you’re wrong.
OK – I give in. A zealot then.
So you guys would be denialist zealots then !
Re John Laws etc and GWs taking a pasting – yep expected and fair cop on Woodstock etc. But jeez JL radio is dickhead central. All shock jock radio stations are. Ring up for a bitch. But is Al Gore and music festivals really what AGW is about – nah ! Sideshows.
Stifling debate? Just publish the papers with the evidence. It’s not a matter of pushing out shonky documentaries.
Hasbeen – “You have described the symptoms experienced by lowlanders when they go to Bolivia,”
Yes but those symptoms are from the lower oxygen partial pressure not more CO2. Pilmer published those figures with no data to back them up. CO2 is becoming poisonous at those levels.
Ender & Co!
Once more you conveniently misinterpret what he said!
“and the world did not end. Quite the contrary — LIFE thrived.”
Where did he mention HUMAN LIFE?
You talking down like that Luke is why you are in the minority; you couldnt sell a beer in a pub.
Don’t know about that – shonkie jocks thrive on it.
rog,
Wow John Laws pasting Global warming…really???
“We are seeing a revival of a form of zealous Western politics intertwined with poor theology, poor economics and poor logic.” What drugs are Plimer on?..this is just slanderous emotive nonsense.
The comments about very high levels of CO2 in the past are generally correct, but I have never heard of 100 times. I have seen reports of 17 times present levels.
Comparison with safe levels for humans is irelevant, because this happened long before humans inhabited the earth.
Nonetheless, life thrived, and there was immense growth in vegetation. And teh temperature was pretty much the same as today.
Re the ABC pushing a barrow. There has been a moderated forum going online for some days. I have submitted a few posts in general support of the docu. None of them made it past the moderator.
So much for balance.
This is the same Tony Jones who tried to tell us that sinking islands in the Solomon Islands chain were evidence of rising sea levels. When I complained they replied with a claim that two unnamed experts said the area was very geologically stable.
My complaint was lodged on 5th April 2007, some four days after the earthquake and tsunami, at which time the island of Ranongga (32km x 8km) was lifted three metres higher. Ranongga is only 200nm from the Carteret Islands.
It is a matter of record that Tony Jones did not report the outcome on Ranongga as evidence of declining sea levels.
Hey Ian still waiting for your explanation of how the Greenhouse effect has nothing to with the polar covalent nature of the relevant molecules..been a while you should have come up with something by now.
4 Billion, the point was not if Laws is pro or anti AGW it was the way AGW proponents want to close down the expression of differing opinions.
Personally I think Durkin a creep but you have to allow everybody a fair go and trying to close down or dumb down discussion is counter productive. Saying “the debate is over” is like a red rag to a bull, debate will never be over (unless you live in Zimbabwe, Russia or Venezuela)
hehe I love this, a bunch of ignorant unqualified leftie hacks decide to argue with one of Australia’s preeminent professors of earth sciences. The arrogance of some people amazes me.
Rog,
Maybe I am reinterpreting too much to be safe, but here goes anyway:
To me, “the debate is over” isn’t meant to be taken as an effort to silence =scientific discussion=. Rather, it is simply shorthand for saying that the science is advanced enough in articulating what the risk is, that there is now sufficient justification for action.
“The debate is over” is simply a call for discussion in the public sphere to shift from fretting over the science, to putting some good hours into debating what actions we should take as risk management.
By all means, scientists can keep debating the science, and denizens of the conspiratorial corners of the blogosphere can debate the science at their leisure.
But the wider public debate, and certainly the debate on policy, can now shift attention to policy action, rather than science.
Indeed, this is what is happening. The debate and research on the science continues, but pretty much all governments in the world, including Australia, China and the USA, are now putting a lot of time and effort into pondering their risk management strategies.
This is in stark contrast to the ferocity of debate on the science on this blog, or on the ABC last night.
The debate is certainly not over for scientists, but it is sufficiently well progressed for politicians and people in general to put some serious thought into risk management action.
So keep arguing about whether or not you think ‘the debate is over’ or not if you like, but know that your discussion is now well and truly in the periphery of public life. At the centre of public life and politics, people are talking about what to do, not whether to do something.
Hey Russell Monsieur Pliny states “The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary — life thrived.
From Luke “The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.
ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm.”
Maybe he should just stick to looking at rocks as I think he has stars in his eyes. Hilarious.
The debate after the scam show was embarrassing, watching fully grown men react in juvenile ways, yikes, like the esteemed scientist who interrupted saying so what if CO2 is 25% higher than is has been for 600000 years ..how unscientific.
rog,
What full length documentary has the ABC screened supporting MMGW theory?, I don’t remember any.
Yes, the earth has had many times in the past when it was uninhabitable, and the rocks are still here. Mass extinctions have been the result for life, though.