This is rather stupid, in my opinion. Not one person I have ever professionally associated with in the cause of climate skepticism has ever said anything at all like what you are about to read below. For the record: Yes, both CO2 and CH4 are “greenhouse gases”, and yes they do have a warming effect by backscattered long wave infra red. The magnitude and risk from it is the central argument. Since it is a good time to review this, here is this graph of CO2 response, done by Willis Eschenbach in MODTRAN. Note it is logarithmic, not linear, as it is often portrayed in media. More here – Anthony
From Quadrant online: ABC fails listeners
by Tom Harris
ABC Radio fails listeners in climate change interview
What’s the worst radio interview ever conducted on climate change? Could it be Australian?
Maybe so. ABC radio’s Robyn Williams’ October 2, 2010 interview of UK-based public relations director Bob Ward is certainly a contender for the worldwide gold medal in the ‘worse ever’ category. The interview, broadcast on the nationally prestigious Science Show, is so bad that listeners don’t need to actually know anything about climate science to spot the most obvious flaws.
Ward says, “The uncertainties in the science are really about how much it will warm in the future and how it will affect the climate. We don’t know because this is a huge experiment that we’re running on our planet.”
Williams justifiably did not contest Ward on this point. The science of climate change is so immature that indeed we do not know “how much it will warm in the future and how it will affect the climate.” The warming could be large, medium (both unlikely based on recent trends), small, or even negative (known by climate campaigners as “interrupted warming” since “cooling” is not part of their lexicon). And, yes, it is effectively an experiment we are conducting. But then Ward’s UK government are already conducting another “experiment” to do with possible future hazard by not preparing for an invasion from Canada. You never know, Canadian forces with mass murder on their minds might hitch a ride on an American transport plane (we have few of our own) destined for Gatwick. Risk assessment also includes probability, Mr. Ward. Otherwise we would never fly in an airplane, drive a car or even cross a city street.
Despite his sensible initial caution, Ward also confidently asserts, “We know, despite the uncertainties, there is a significant probability that if we just carry on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we risk large changes in temperature with large impacts on the climate, impacts that will be very, very difficult for us to cope with and the kinda [sic] thing that I think most people would not want to risk if there’s a cost effective solution to reducing emissions.”
A good interviewer would have immediately cornered Ward since this comment contradicts Ward’s (correct) statement that we don’t know “how much it will warm in the future and how it will affect the climate”. Williams should also have asked, “What is “a significant probability” of large climatic changes due to human emissions?” 5%? 25%? 90%? This is important to approximate since we know with 100% certainty that if we spend trillions on Ward’s boss’ climate crusade (Ward works as Policy and Communications Director for Nicholas Stern, at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London), there will be far less money available to tackle truly desperate world problems that we know are real and immediate.
Take the 5 million people a year, mostly children, who die due to contaminated drinking water in Africa, for example. This is not some abstract possible threat postulated by theorists with vested interests in forecasting catastrophe to keep research dollars flowing. The drinking water crisis, and many other on-going world tragedies, are happening right now; there is no doubt. The UN has shown that the 1.5 billion people who lack clean water, sanitation and elementary health care and education could all be provided with it for about $70 billion/year. Contrast this with the one trillion dollar price tag estimated by George Taylor, former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, for one year’s compliance of OECD countries with the Kyoto Protocol. If Williams was on the ball, he would have asked Ward, “which is more important – the health and welfare of people suffering today, or those not yet born who might suffer someday due to climate change that even you admit is highly uncertain?”
Even if there is non-trivial warming over the coming decades, how does Ward, or anyone else, know that human activity is making a measurable contribution? We don’t of course. Even if Williams didn’t know this, he still should have asked, “who is to say warming “will be very, very difficult for us to cope with” or that the warming will even be detrimental overall?” In one of the many peer-reviewed scientific papers that Ward seems to have missed, former Environment Canada scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown that India has done very well in a warming climate and concludes that wealthier nations such as Canada have essentially nothing to fear should warming resume (the UK’s Hadley Center shows that temperatures have plateaued in the last decade despite an increase in carbon dioxide levels of more than 5% – see graph below).
And when Ward asserts that dangerous global warming is “the kinda [sic] thing that I think most people would not want to risk if there is a cost effective solution to reducing emissions”, why didn’t Williams ask Ward what such “a cost effective solution” would be? Is it perhaps because no one can complete a meaningful cost/benefit analysis when future climate states are even less understood than the economic and social impacts of both climate change or energy rationing due to the sort of greenhouse gas controls Ward promotes? Ward’s statement is also self-evident – no one would oppose eliminating risk, no matter how small, in any field if a “cost effective solution” could be found. But then to formulate such a solution we first need to know accurately the balance of cost and benefit – which, for climate change, we do not.
Next, Ward attributes nonsense to climate skeptics:
Anybody who seriously argues that carbon dioxide and methane are not greenhouse gases; that increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere doesn’t warm the world; I mean they’re basically fighting against 200 years worth of science….
and …
Now, you’ve got to be very, very blinkered in your view if you are saying “I know for sure there will be no increase in temperature and there’s no risk.”
Why didn’t Williams ask Ward to tell the listening audience who has made these sorts of absolute statements? Is it because no one actually has? Certainly, Ward’s primary targets for vilification in the interview, Professors Carter, Lindzen and Plimer, never have. Even with his relatively weak science background, Ward must know that.
Ward’s conclusion is classic:
… what’s worrying about this is they [climate skeptics] are creating confusion at a time when we have to make very serious decisions because the climate responds slowly to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and actually the decisions we gonna [sic] make today about emissions are about what kind of climate we’ll see 20, 30 years from now and has very large implications if we make the wrong decisions.
Given Ward’s overconfidence about a science that he admits is grossly uncertain, Williams should have jumped at the chance to ask him an obvious question, which is:
Since the impacts of major greenhouse gas decisions are delayed for decades, shouldn’t we take the time to carefully consider what leading experts such as Carter, Plimer and Lindzen are saying? Why rush decisions when the consequences of being wrong are so high? Either we are headed towards climate catastrophe or we are on the verge of wasting trillions of dollars worldwide on a non-issue. Either way, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to perform due diligence on the issue before making any decisions at all.
Finally, Williams should have pointed out that Ward is not treating the public like adults. We may tell very young children that the world is predictable to help them sleep at night. But telling the public that ‘the science is clear’, as UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and other alarmists do all the time, when reality is precisely the opposite, does us all a great disservice.
Rather than labeling well-qualified experts such as Carter, Lindzen and Plimer as merely confusion generators who should be silenced, and trying to suppress their views, Ward should be helping the public to hear more of what they have to say.
For only if all sides of the science are on the table for discussion do we have any chance of making rational decisions about what may very well be the most complex issue humanity has ever tackled.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition
=====================================================
The audio and transcript of this entire interview is online at ABC here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3023812.htm
Email addresses contacting people at ABC to express your views on this incident:
Chairman of the Board (Maurice Newman -via his personal assistant who is Angela Peters: Peters.Angela (at) abc.net.au
Robyn Williams: Williams.Robyn (at) abc.net.au
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sexton says . . .
“You know, I don’t mind getting put in a box and labeled. It’s wrong, but it’s what people do. I’m a conservative.(American style, I understand the word has different connotations in different parts of the world.) I believe in God, guns and the flag. In that order. ”
Well, I mind being put in a box and labeled. I’m tired of conservatives interjecting their religion and politics into AGW skepticism and liberals interjecting theirs into AGW belief. I’m not particularly interested in anybody’s god[s], guns, or flags, and I don’t like being lumped in with partisans and ideologues. If conservative Republicans in America insist on taking up the AGW skeptics’ banner, they will destroy the skeptics’ cause and credibility with the general public. Something like 67% of Americans dislike the Republican Party, and the numbers are almost the same for the Democratic Party. And in Congress, Republicans are viewed even less favorably (something like 15%) than Democrats (something like 20%). The minute I hear some moralizing, bible-thumping, god-fearing Republican say ANYTHING on any subject, I have an urge to immediate take the opposite position. Republicans are parodied in the media as stuffy, boring, superstitious, self-righteous hypocrites because so many, many of them actually are. Democrats, on the other hand, are depicted as modern, trendy, stylish, fun, loving, tolerant, and benign. It’s all a crock, but impressions count.
I’m fairly liberal on social issues, with the exception of abortion (whatever happened to birth control?), but always try to be fair and reasonable, and I do not want to be identified with any political group or party. And when it comes to climate change, I do not believe politics should ever be allowed to muddy the waters. This isn’t a political contest or a battle of religions, and all the windbag politicians need to shut up.
bgood2creation,
I know the folks here are skeptical of models. Thankfully you don’t need to merely rely on the MODTRAN model graph above. There are a few studies from the past decade that use experimental evidence to demonstrate the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Really?
1. Harries et al. 2001, “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” (65 citations)
I cannot find the full paper anywhere but this paper’s conclusions are challenged,
Is the additional greenhouse effect already evident in the current climate?
(Fresenius’ Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Volume 371, Number 6, pp. 791-797, November 2001)
– E. Raschke
“Several greenhouse gases, which are in part or entirely produced by human activities, have accumulated in the atmosphere since approximately the middle of the 19th century. They are assumed to have an additional greenhouse effect causing a further increase of atmospheric temperatures near the ground and a decrease in the layers above approximately 15 km altitude. The currently observed near-surface warming over nearly the entire globe is already considered by a large fraction of our society to be result of this additional greenhouse effect. Complete justification of this assumption is, however, not yet possible, because there are still too many unknowns in our knowledge of participating processes and in our modeling capabilities.”
2. Griggs and Harries 2004, “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present” (2 citations)
This is a proceedings papers and not peer-reviewed.
3. Philipona et al. 2004, “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect” (37 citations)
This paper relies on models,
“Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm-2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+ 0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m-3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
“Coupled atmosphere-ocean General Circulation Models (GCMs) were used to predict changes of radiative forcings and their impact on surface temperature and humidity,”
“Overall, model calculations predict anthropogenic greenhouse gases and feedbacks to increase LDRcf by a total of +1.58 Wm-2 on average over the eight years”
“We have shown that longwave downward radiation flux increases at Earth’s surface can be accurately measured, subdivided and explicitly explained and backed with model calculations as cloud-, temperature-, water vapour- and enhanced greenhouse gas radiative forcing effect.”
It also includes MODTRAN modeling, which you erroneously claimed they did not,
“Stand-alone radiative transfer calculations with the MODTRAN model predict a +0.26 Wm-2 LDR increase for 12 ppm CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases apart from water vapour. For water vapour, MODTRAN calculations”
“and is in reasonably good agreement with the expected +1.58 Wm-2 increase predicted by MODTRAN radiative transfer model calculations.”
4. Evans 2006, “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate” (Zero Citations)
Another conference paper and not peer-reviewed.
So essentially you have no argument. For papers claiming to make an empirical case for AGW you would think they would all be published and widely cited. Funny how skeptics papers must be peer-reviewed and widely cited but AGW proponents can have 2 or less citations and be conference papers. Hypocrites?
I suggest in the future not looking at Skeptical Science for you sources.
Steven Mosher
The answer right now is “D” that we do not know but there is evidence both theoretical/technical(eg Thermodynamics) and measured for “B” particularly with CO2 lagging temperature (in long term-lag 800-1000yrs, medium term- lag 5-10 years and even daily- lag a few hours)
I agree that State/Governemnt funded media is biased and that media commentators have as a general rule no expertise in technical/scientific matters so they just repeat what they instructed to do or follow the fashion that supports the politics of their establishment which is normally towards socialism.
“The uncertainties in the science are really about how much it will warm ” 100% correct, there is positive warming (MWP) and negative warming (Little Ice Age), as my science teacher was fond of telling us, “there is no such thing as cold, only an absence of heat)
It’s not Stern who pays Ward’s salary. It’s the Granthams who are paying for this poor exercise in propaganda.
Slightly off topic, but we should respect what Australia’s ABC tells us.
I live in central Victoria, Australia and notice that our Blue Pacific (Ceanothus) bush is now more than two weeks late in blooming. While I know that this could be due to Victoria’s September weather having been the coolest in the last 16 years, I don’t know about that. Our ABC reports that:
and…
(My emphasis)
Avoid the Melbourne UHI at Laverton Hmmm?
Anyway I firmly believe that the late blooming of our Blue Pacific bush is an unequivocal indication that the climate is becoming colder. Clearly a precursor to the onset of the next interglacial!
Anton says:
October 5, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Anton,
No one tried to create a label for you. And unfortunately, this IS a political issue. The intent of the CAGW crowd is to utilize this issue to drive a political theology – Marxism. It isn’t conspiracy THEORY. It’s observable fact. The plans for taxation implemented by Cap N Trade and the COP 15 treaty are not theory. And these documents are not theory. So political ideology is the underbelly of this issue, and kindly observe that the Right did not bring it. They are defending against the slide into economic destruction. However stuffy and backward they may be, they’re the only thing standing in the path of US economic ruin.
It has only been in the last 2 years that the motives behind CAGW took shape in popular opinion, and among the GOP. Prior to that, they really had no idea. Inhofe was the best(and maybe only) known skeptic in congress. Fortunately due to blogs like this one, they have seen the light.
Conservative does not equal GOP, or Religious anything. Many of us who are financially conservative identify with this label. It simply means we want sane management of this country’s finances. You said it yourself that Republicans are parodied….. IN THE MEDIA…. Presentation is everything, and they’ve been the subject of smearing for decades.
what’s worrying about this is they [climate skeptics] are creating confusion at a time when we have to make very serious decisions….
snif…Yes, the sceptical component of the Scientific Method – you know, where you have to expose your “materials and methods” to the world and invite the criticisms of others in order to have a scientifically credible process – does make it a bit difficult to approach real Scientific validity, and to produce enough of it so as to be able to rationally base decisions; that is, in contrast to simply buying the result you want via a multitude of pre-fabricated “correct” studies reviewed by only a few “peers”, a process which is then quite incorrectly alleged to have warranted that the studies are now the given truth, and that any sceptical detractors of this particular process, some of whom have also broken through the Climate Science Priesthood’s secrecy to show critical flaws in the “given truth” studies, are only sceptical troublemakers impeding the “serious decision making”.
….too bad, so sad, isn’t it that scepticism is in fact necessary to the Scientific Method in order to have any scientifically valid idea as to what you are dealing with and what to do about it, if anything, and especially to attempt to insure that any alleged cure is not in fact worse than its corresponding alleged disease?
And when the Chinese and Indians, with full knowledge of the ipcc’s alleged Climate Science, have made their own very serious decisions but have set about to actually massively assist the alleged CO2CAGW disease mechanism by essentially producing as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible, in what category did Bob Ward place them, “stupid” at best, “Satanic Destructors of Creation” at worst?
The FUTILITY of Mankind trying to Control Climate
Just running the numbers
On average world temperature is +15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Greenhouse Effect = ~33.00 deg C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane and Nitrous Oxide GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1,740 millionths deg C
• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17.6 thousandths deg C
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.01deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.
All because CO2 based Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion. And now after splattergate thanks to 10:10 we now know exactly how many of them think.
bgood2creation,
How about:-
http://kirkmyers.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/miskolczi-destroys-greenhouse-theory/
“ClimateTruth: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.
ClimateTruth: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
Dr. Miskolczi: No.
ClimateTruth: If your theory stands up to scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some instances, dismissal and derision?
Dr. Miskolczi: I can only guess. First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon trade and energy taxes.
ClimateTruth: A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled?
Dr. Miskolczi: Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally.”
Anybody who seriously argues that carbon dioxide and methane are not greenhouse gases; that increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere doesn’t warm the world; I mean they’re basically fighting against 200 years worth of science….
Anybody who seriously argues that air is not an insulating gas; that increasing the thickness of double glazing doesn’t improve the insulation; I mean they’re basically fighting against 200 years worth of science….
Except they are because when you use Noddy science like this you forget simple things like the air moves … air in double glazing starts to move if the air gap becomes too large with the result the convective currents between the panes of glass override any increased insulation.
Similarly, CO2 & methane do not only absorb IR (obviously according to the conservation of energy) they emit IR. Basically they are far more “air-conditioning gases” than “greenhouse” gases (greenhouse work because they prevent convective currents not because of IR blocking!!!!!)
Basically they help emit IR from convective air currents – they increase cooling in the atmosphere!! …. And no doubt if we were facing natural cooling instead of natural warming, we’d all be told that anyone who denied the cooling effect of CO2 is flying in the face of 200 years of science.
u gotta love that graph (temp anomoly). the end point fallacy aplied 3 times in 1 graph. with nice simple linear fits each time. why didn’t they let me do that in uni?
CO2 and CH4 are definitely greenhouse gasses? Well, Anthony, not really if you believe the laws of thermodynamics. This so called back-scatter, or re-radiation in another form, violates the basic law that heat can only flow from warm to cold. If any gas has convected due to being heated, as they all do, then this parcel of gas will cool adiabatically and will become cooler than the surface. So this particular mass of gas cannot heat the surface only radiate heat to cooler above. Also any gas which adsorbes incoming energy is reducing energy reaching the surface. If it radiates this energy it is not increasing the incoming solar energy just releasing the energy that it has adsorbed so raising the level of total energy to that of the solar, less any system losses. Nothing can store energy, as stated by the GHG theory, due to 2nd law violations. As soon as any substance gains energy it must release that energy to a system at a lower energy level.
Atmospheric energy levels all come from the sun. Whatever energy exchanges happen will not change the overall energy in the system, law 1 applies.
The usual warmist emotive hyperbole from Ward:
“…if we just carry on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere…”
Greenhouse gases can be emitted or released. But just who “pumps” greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? This sounds serious!
What this really shows up is that a person such as Robyn Williams can live off the public purse f0r the whole of his life and get accolades from the people he reports. He has acquired honorary degrees yet his own personal input has been a basic Bsc .
“Is it because no one actually has?”
You must lead a sheltered life. Did you not read the howls of outrage when Spencer explained that the greenhouse effect did not violate the laws of thermodynamics? Have you not seen Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s masterpiece “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”?
Many readers on this site have problems with Engelbeen’s arguments that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 levels.
Short holidays in Australia some years ago was enough to convince me that the ABC is as biased to the left and to Warmism as the BBC and may even use the BBC as its model.
Bob Ward’s specious attempts to deny the truths laid out in ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ and his attacks on scientists who agree with the author in their reviews of that book is enough to give a very clear picture of Bob’s mission; to deny any fact which does not agree with his particular alarmist biases.
I am happy to be labelled a sceptic. I believe everyone, even those of us who have the tiniest scintilla of scientific knowledge, must be persuaded of the validity of any argument or theory rather than being told we are too ignorant or stupid to understand. I am not happy to be labelled either a ‘Liberal’ or a ‘Conservative’ as I believe those labels are too often applied without much thought or knowledge.
“The CAGW establishment has yet to realise that you cannot bully and batter people into trusting you, you cannot insult and deride your way into a persons affections and you cannot lie and cheat your way into peoples hearts.”
Cassandra,Liked your post – that has been my observation as a sceptic trying to make sense of the CAGW claims and the methods that have been used to belittle people like me and discredit the few scientists who were speaking out against Al Gores hyped propaganda film.
I found closed minds, sloppy thinking, regurgitation of half truths and a general disdain at the intellectual capacity of anyone that dared question CAGW. That, disdain later turned to rather dark threats, extremist suggestions, with the worst bile directed at sceptical scientists most qualified to comment. Of course they accepted without question the concept of universal scientific consensus and purity of “their” side!!. nuff said!!
Steve Mosher, we got into this gross stupidity by those with an agenda applying certainty, where they knew no such certainty existed, but in their lofty perception dumb people (the lesser of the world ?) should be lead by the nose and presented with clear cut choices, lest they think, question, and destroy a perfect opportunity to advance those agenda.
Unfortunately your “simple” choice poll, is sufficiently cas,t to be a spin doctors dream in presenting whatever view they want, it does not really help. Smokies true or false is better, with some adjustments to the question.
Alternatively I kind of like Judith Curry’s attempt to define the uncertainties of climate science and present alternative theories for discussion. This is what the Media and the ABC should be doing and following closely…. though I must say that in following Judiths blog, its a bit like a headmistress trying to control unruly children who wont concede even the most insignificant point, in a quest to prove their own theory.
I found that a bit frustrating in the discussion on the Bangladesh floods, when the scientists lost sight of the need for weather science (World Meteorology) to try and bury competing science theories and work towards providing early warning of approaching extreme weather and thus save lives. Judith did bring them back to that reality, but that didn’t stop the theorising and point scoring.
Judith has the patience of a saint IMHO!
There is a golden opportunity in Australia for introducing as a viable alternative to the present closed Political Climate committee,(proposed by the greens and Julia Gillards Labor) where you must be committed to accepting the green consensus on climate change and therefore, the introduction of a carbon pricing and tax regime before you can meet in secret (closed sessions) to determine how this will be foisted on the Australian public (Spin)
The golden opportunity is for the alternative government to sponsor an open and searching Senate investigation into the true strengths and weaknesses of the Climate Science underpinning this carbon taxing adventure.
I am sure that Anthony would give such an open public examination the publicity and the accolades necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people, for their better information on Climate Science. By opening up the science, to wider and unbiased scruitiny, people are better informed to apply a thoughtful vote in a proper exercise of democracy.
Just sick of spin and stupidity!!
I’m not surprised anymore by the climate dogma that pervaids the ABC and its journalists. There was at one time an attempt by one senior individual from the ABC to state that that the ABC should not have a “position” on the climate change issue. This advice has however been totally ignored. At every opportunity the ABC anounces some “evidence” for global warming or climate change that has now morphed into whether its hot or cold or wet or dry or ice disappearing along the west coast of Antarctica or the disappearance of a species of penguin, or plants in a greenhouse that are stunted by increased CO2 levels etc etc.
Does anyone expect to get a fair shake from the media or the warmists? SkepticalScience (very active pro warming site) has an article now that basically states that the only possible way to be “coherent” is to believe in AGW.
I will put up the commentary on my website tonight when I am done asking the following question there:
“So do any of you believe that skeptics can be coherent?”
It will be interesting to see what they say. I think we can all expect what they will say, but I am hoping that someone has an open mind.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
Anthony Watts thinks C02 has a small warming effect. Warmists say C02 has a big warming effect.
I think more C02 will have a cooling effect. Explained more fully here
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Warmists have one theory, sceptics have many and I see this as a plus for the sceptics.
These different theories are defended on WUWT. That is good for science.
Bob Ward says
Anybody who seriously argues that carbon dioxide and methane are not greenhouse gases; that increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere doesn’t warm the world; I mean they’re basically fighting against 200 years worth of science….
Older science is most likely to be wrong.
ABC: Anything But Credible.
Anton says:
October 5, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Sexton says . . .
“………It’s all a crock, but impressions count.
I’m fairly liberal on social issues, with the exception of abortion (whatever happened to birth control?), but always try to be fair and reasonable, and I do not want to be identified with any political group or party. And when it comes to climate change, I do not believe politics should ever be allowed to muddy the waters. This isn’t a political contest or a battle of religions, and all the windbag politicians need to shut up.”
=======================================================
Friend, I’m sorry to inform you, but it is a political issue. What I was attempting to point out, is that it isn’t fair for skeptics to be lumped all together in the same box as alarmists attempt to do. I also pointed out, it is human nature to do so. Climate skeptics traverse the entire political spectrum. This is to the credit of skepticism, not to the detriment of skepticism. Further, skepticism attacks the CAGW theory on all issues, not simply one or two. More to the credit of skeptics. As NoMoreGore shows, the politicization of the issue is the direct result of the alarmist activism and the proposed solutions. They read like a rewrite of Das Capital. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. For the record, conservatism doesn’t equal Republican. Further, I’m sorry about your reaction to “moralizing, bible-thumping, god-fearing Republicans”. I would have thought by now, at least in the skeptic community, we would have taken the time to examine our own prejudices and preconceptions of others. It seems I may have been overly optimistic. I’m also sorry about your fear of being mischaracterized by the media. Welcome to our world. Perhaps we can aim for doing away with some other misconceptions while we fight the alarmists? Or is that just too much to ask? Or is that too moralizing?
The science is ALWAYS clear when you have a vested interest in it~!
Lowering my carbon footprint would be a disaster. I own one rig that I use to drive to work during the week in town, and then use for work on the ranch on the weekends and in the Summer. It is a Jeep Commander. I used to have a Toyota Corolla as my only rig. I scratched it up loading it with barbed wire and tore up the underside on rocky ground while fixing fence.
I have one thing to say to any politician who wants to raise my taxes because of use of carbon.
Nuts.