Senator Fielding, climate change scepticism and the importance of peer review
|
Senator Steve Fielding, while denying that he is a climate sceptic, appears to have retreated to first principles on climate change, demanding proof from the government of atmospheric warming and the role of carbon emissions in climate change. Fielding met yesterday with Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and ANU professor Will Steffen. Fielding took to the meeting four climate sceptics — David Evans, Stewart Franks, Bob Carter and William Kininmonth — and prepared a briefing note outlining claims that the planet was cooling or that carbon emissions were unrelated to climate change. Evans, Stewart, Carter and Kininmonth represent the cream of local climate denialism. Carter and Evans, who makes much of his former role at the Australian Greenhouse Office, have no relevant climate science qualifications. Carter, a geologist, is on record as calling the process of scientific peer review “over-stressed”, and that whether or not research had been funded by fossil fuel industries was “irrelevant”. Franks has argued that water vapour “could potentially swamp the relatively small role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and that the Stern Report was “entirely unjustifiable” and “a grossly uncertain economic analysis on top of extremely dubious climate forecasts”. Franks has also, ironically, been critical of “the worst type of scientist that has involved themselves in the question of climate change… the concerned outsider — someone with a scientific background entirely unrelated to climate change”, which sums up his two colleagues Evans and Carter perfectly. Fielding’s primary objection appears to rely on the repeatedly-discredited claim that global temperatures are falling based on a reliance on 1998 temperatures as a base, when the long-term trend from 1900 to date shows a disconcertingly rapid rise despite occasional spikes and peaks. Senator Fielding isn’t misleading when he denies being a sceptic. While prone to arguing himself into peculiar positions, in fact he’s one of the more open-minded senators and occasionally will change his vote when convinced by the arguments of other senators mid-debate. What he has done, however, is given a bunch of cranks and contrarians the same status as peer-reviewed science and well-established consensus, and demanded certainty when nature provides no such thing. He has also misunderstood the views of the sceptics he armed himself with for his meeting with Wong: climate sceptics will never be convinced by facts or reasoning, because their scepticism has little to do with evidence and everything to do with their own ideologies or with their readiness to accept funding to support an industry line. Denialists will always find a way to dispute even the most obvious facts. Regardless of its disconnection from the real world, outright denialism is undoubtedly experiencing a mini-boom in Australia, even as scepticism overseas takes the more muted form of suggesting developing countries need to act before developed countries do so. Western Australian Liberal senator Michaelia Cash dissented from the conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy tabled yesterday to declare that she didn’t believe that the balance of evidence supported anthropogenic global warming, although she takes Rupert Murdoch’s position that “the planet should be given the benefit of the doubt” provided it doesn’t cost Australians anything (which is, economically, a contradictory position). In the end, though Fielding’s vote, convinced by the arguments of sceptics or informed scientists, won’t matter particularly. The success or otherwise of the Government’s legislation now rests in the hands of the Liberals and the tacticians in the Prime Minister’s Office. |
|
|
|
8 Comments
Fair enough Bernard, you flay Evans, and Carter. And criticize Franks’ position on water vapor; but no mention of Kininmonth’s views. Why not? He is certainly qualified to express an opinion on the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, he was after all the head of the Bureau of Meteorology’ until his retirement.
a correction to that post: He was head of the Bureau of Meteorology’s
Climate Center
Ah Bernard you tempt fate, that supreme being of global warming denial ‘The Bolter’ will have you in his sights. By all that is chilling you may even make the leader on his blog, now that is scary. Of course his trip to Israel may convince him that indeed there is a certain warmth in the air, even if its the warmth of a 5 star hotel, vintage wines, air con limos, sightseeing, finest tucker and the odd night out on the town…ah yes nothing like an investigative trip on the house. Now what the hell is going there forI can’t recall……..mmmmm
Fielding is right and wrong. Global Dimming caused by Indian and Chinese particulates are masking embedded warming such that there is a plateau in ambient temperature rise. But that just means we are in even bigger do do than anyone really understands. Stand by for the tipping point?
Bernard, There are relatively few genuine “climate scientists” around. the science of the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere system is dealt with by atmospheric physicists, climatologists, oceanographers, marine reef scientists, researchers of ice cores and sediments (paleoclimatologists), botanists, foresters , the list goes on.
The discipline of Earth scientists (like Carter, or Plimer, or myself for this matter), is relevant to the issue.
The critical tests are:
1. Whether they publish in the peer review literature
2. Whether their views are consistent with the essential physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. If not, the onus is on them to prove the opposite.
3. Whether they distinguish between hard data and interpretations or mix them up.
4. Whether they cite data accurately (“Every one is entitled to his view but not everyone is entitled to his facts” - Senator Moynihan).
PSEUDOSCEPTICS OFTEN ALTER ORIGINAL DATA SETS.
The fact that some of the sceptics supported the “Great Global Warming Swindle” film, which omitted critical climate data post-1980, speaks for itself.
Andrew Glikson
Just a note Bernard: Geologists ARE involved in the climate debate they are the ones who provide all the historical knowledge for one thing.
The people who work on ice cores that give us temperature and carbon dioxide (as well as other atmospheric gases) data over many tens of thousands of years are GEOLOGISTS. Scientists who provide data on sea level changes include geologists.
One of my geology lecturers (not Bob Carter) at uni (JCU) did his PhD on ice cores from Antarctica. He was a fountain of knowledge on evidence of changes in atmospheric conditions over the last x thousand years.
I’m a bit surprised at Bob being such a sceptic, though maybe it’s just his way of constantly questioning the status quo as he seemed to encourage us to do, though he did encourage us to base findings on relevant facts that had been peer reviewed. I’m particularly surprised as there were a few projects going on in honours and PhDs that related to climate change data when I was there (ok it was 13 years ago and Bob was head of earth sciences), one of my friends was doing work on data that could be obtained from coral cores (yes a geology honours project) for sea level change, flood events and temperature data; even mine had a minor input in relation to sea level rises and falls for the last 10-15000 years.
Climate science is a combination of pretty much any science discipline you can think of eg geology, chemistry, zoology, botany, marine sciences (physics, chemistry, geology and biology substrains), meteorology, physics, oceanography, palaentology (which is taught in earth science departments) etc and the list goes on and on and on.
Bernard I am shocked to find you using “sceptic” as anything but a term of (at least moderate) approval as in your “Senator Fielding isn’t misleading when he denies being a sceptic. While prone to arguing himself into peculiar positions, in fact he’s one of the more open-minded senators and occasionally will change his vote when convinced by the arguments of other senators mid-debate. ” And you seem to deny that a sceptical attitude is a, normally, sound open-minded attitude which allows one to attend to contrary evidence and argument. You make it worse when you go on to equate “climate sceptics” to “denialists”, the latter term being appropriate enough for those who are as ideologically driven as the green-religionists (whom I have reluctantly come to recognise from the kind of language and exhortations they use) on the other side.
As to the endorsement of criticisms of scientists who are not true climate scientists (whatever they are as a couple of comments illustrate by reference to the huge range of scientific knowledge which is relevant to the AGW question) I suggest you consider whether you sympathise with the occasional priggish Catholic theologian who objects that neither secular philosophers nor clever militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, nor even non-Catholic theologians can claim to be heard against the consensus, backed, presumably, by peer review in the Vatican.
Bernard
You say ” climate sceptics will never be convinced by facts or reasoning, because their scepticism has little to do with evidence and everything to do with their own ideologies or with their readiness to accept funding to support an industry line. Denialists will always find a way to dispute even the most obvious facts”
Just replace “sceptics” and “denialists” with “Alarmists” and you get the same rude result.
The history of the earth has been ignored by the alarmists.
As a geologist I applaud the remarks from Bronwyn. But Bronwyn your surprise at the lack of funded study by geologists is not surprising — universities are pandering to the latest fad for funds and are reducing geological research
Ferdinand — There is no such thing as a “climate scientist” — they must be a mixture.
And most are funded by governments in meteorological jobs and in universities . Their studies are short term as far as geologists are concerned. We measure in 100’s, 1000’s, and millions of years — not a few decades.