The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Climate expert slams Fielding
|
ANU climate change expert Professor Will Steffen has responded to Senator Steve Fielding’s climate sceptic claims with an open letter slamming the position advanced by Fielding in June after returning from a greenhouse denialist conference in the United States. Fielding sought and obtained a meeting between Climate Minister Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and Steffen to argue that the evidence for climate change was in dispute. Fielding attended the meeting with prominent climate sceptics such as Bob Carter and Stewart Franks, and claimed that evidence showed there was no global warming and carbon was not responsible for climate change. Fielding subsequently asked that Steffen attend a presentation to senators with Carter, which Steffen has declined. In a savage assault on the credibility of Carter and his fellow sceptics, Steffen tells Fielding:
Steffen points out that there is no peer-reviewed material that refutes the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and invites Fielding to visit ANU to discuss climate change. |
|
|
74 Comments
I can’t believe, given Fieldings background in engineering, that he displays the stupidity that he does on this issue.
It seems to me that climate change “deniers” do so out of some philosophical bent and make the mistake of assuming that advocating climate change is also a philosophical stance. It is not, it is a matter of the balance of scientific opinion and an overwhelming balance at that.
To deny anthropogenic climate change is to deny the validity of the entire peer reviewed scientific process in all matters of science, not just climate change!
Fielding displays extreme stupidity in almost everything! Regardless of his claimed “background in engineering” - I am led to believe that he represents some religious factional bloc of voters called Family First. By their very nature all of these people would be rabidly ” creationist ” in their beliefs about how the Universe actually works and thereby knee-jerk in denial of the scientific evidence of the harm Mankind and industry continues to inflict on our island Earth. Creationism is totally ” anti-science “. In his trenchant opposition to scientific fact, Fielding is simply reverting to type. Perhaps he thinks some voodoo deity will just reach-out from the remotest reaches of some far galaxy to wipe away our polluting, Earth destroying sins and make it all better? Like redneck, Bible-bashing Republicans in the US and their eerily similar radical Muslim brothers in certain other countries - Fielding is a living, breathing embodiment of the harm to a just and fair democratoc society that ” religion ” does. We are supposed to have a ” secular ” State - these superstitious cranks have no place in the decision-making on Earth’s fragile future.
Well said Wiseguy. I get a distinct impression of a certain level of snide cyniscm from the ‘deniers’ I’ve come across.
I don’t think Fielding falls into this category though. My impression is that he is merely parroting what he has heard from others without reall understanding the underlying issues, causes or the basic scientific principles that underline the research (or lack thereoff for the deniers).
Philip, what sort of background in engineering has Fielding got? I can’t believe that anyone so moronic managed to achieve any reputable qualifications. I may be wrong but I think he has voted against every single issue put up by the government and compounds this by pretending he knows what he is talking about. He has to parrot what he has heard from other people, usually right-wing rednecks, because he hasn’t a thought of his own.
If his website http://www.stevefielding.com.au/about/ is anything to go by I would suggest Electronic or Electrical Engineering given that he worked for HP, NEC and Siemens. Apparently he also has an MBA… Clearly must have checked his brain at the door with that one.
Please, Please, Please, do not associate Stephen Fielding with Christianity - like so many of his US counterparts, he is peddling extremist ideology dressed up as religion. Millions of Christians around the world are deeply committed to genuine action on climate change - religiously motivated - as “Care for the Earth” is an inescapable tenet of genuine Christianity.
i am not a denier, rather a sceptic - nothing wrong with that.
I get really offended when people use the word ‘denier’ with rather viscious intent. What I do know is that for every credible Professor like Will Steffen, there is another credible Professor presenting a different view on climate change.
I went to a presentation 2 months ago in which the Professor, remains nameless but is a sceptic, highlighted that no ‘climate change champion’ has ever mentioned that most of earth was completely covered in ice a little over 5,000 years ago. He also mentioned that Geologists can prove that the earth has been through global warming episodes in previous periods gone.
So I guess my view is, lets keep this into perspective and not get caught up in “are you a believer or not?” I am an atheist but I have never been called a theism denier, nor should I be called that (notwithstanding that an overwhelming amount of evidence dispels Jesus!!)
Simmobc, I know your position sounds very reasonable to you, but unfortunately it’s not. It is simply not true that ‘for every credible Professor like Will Steffen, there is another credible Professor presenting a different view on climate change’. In fact, within the community of people who have the expertise to actually comprehend the details of climate modelling, prediction and data, there is currently not a single individual who is advocating a fundamentally different view than the consensus (although there will always be differing views over details).
In the scientific literature, the debate that you want to place yourself on the fence of does not exist. Sceptisism means that you want to see the evidence before being convinced, but when the evidence is there in broad daylight, it is not sceptisism. I’m also no fan of the term ‘denier’, but ‘climate change sceptisism’ at this point in history requires willful ignorance, not rational caution.
Those who claim scientific authority but who claim the entire AGW thesis is wrong are invariably retired researchers who have been out of the field for years or those from parrallel fields (often geology for instance) who are not fully skilled in climate science, but want to have a dig anyway. In any case, they are still a small and disproptionataly loud minority. There is no active debate in the climate science community, not because of some kind of group think but because the issues have been hammered out for decades and those who thought there were good reasons that AGW was a bad theory have been shown to be incorrect, and indeed in many many cases respectable researchers who once argued against the idea (in an intelligent way) have seen the weight of evidence go against their thesis and have rightly abandoned it, as is done all the time in science.
It is the nature of journalism that ‘both sides of the story’ need to be aired, so any fool with a blog and Excel can make a graph that is compared alongside something much more meaningful, where every step has been checked thouroughly and carefully. However it gives the impression to the public that there is an active debate, when in fact this is not the case.
There is always uncertainty, but the best bet that the most competent people we have in the field can come up with is that we are in some serious trouble. Uncertaintly goes both ways, so they are just as likely to have underestimated the impacts and overestimating them. It also remains possible that CO2 will have essentially no great impact, however this is a highly unlikely hypothesis, given the evidence we have (which include the use of the known laws of physics to make predictions about future climate change). We should be acting based on the best information we have, not ignoring it and placing false hope in a view supported by very little evidence.
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to specifically respond to this:
“I went to a presentation 2 months ago in which the Professor, remains nameless but is a sceptic, highlighted that no ‘climate change champion’ has ever mentioned that most of earth was completely covered in ice a little over 5,000 years ago. He also mentioned that Geologists can prove that the earth has been through global warming episodes in previous periods gone.”
You see, here is an example of the complete fancyful nature of many ‘CC sceptics’ arguements. Previous ice ages and other shifts in the Earths climate in the past are matter of largely undisputed fact (as much as anything can be considered a ‘fact’). What the esteemed Professor is doing is pointing out the obvious, but wrongfully claiming that a ‘climate change champion’ would dispute it, of course they wouldn’t. This is a very common debating tactic (also used by Creationists) in which common knowledge is delivered as if it was a revalation, and then completely skewed in a way that appears to support some dubious proposition.
The ‘mainstream’ climate science community is fully aware of those fact you point out, and are more than happy to ‘mention’ them, since the geological record is one of the many pieces of evidence that has gone into formulating the current best bet hypothesis. The fact that you are happy to repeat this apparent scandalous flaw in climate science suggests again that your sceptism is in fact dressed up ignorance, since even the most cursory read of any basic exposition of modern climate change science will include the details you have raised about the geological record.
I am merely a logical, non populist, young voter trying to form a view based on inconsistent arguments.
What the professor was saying was “lets get all the facts on the table..”. For example, did you know that the worlds glaciers shrunk during the 1920’s but actually grew during the 1970’s and the most part of the 1980’s?
I agree, scientists take history into consideration - thats why climate change is still only a hypothesis which wont be proven for say another 300+ years. Scientists don’t know 100% whether this is another logical shift in climate, I don’t know, Al Gore doesn’t know and you don’t know. This is a fact, no scientist would refute this.
I don’t mind being called a religious denier (as the facts are there to back me up) but I don’t like being called a climate change denier, rather a sceptic.
Again, those facts you want to ‘get onto the table’ have been ‘under the microscope’ (so to speak) since long long before the world knew anything about Al Gore.
No one knows for 100% sure that there are electrons, but we’ve done a fair bit under the working hypothesis that there are. You are wrong to suggest that in 300+ years we will be able to ‘prove’ something about climate science that we can’t do now. If in 300 years the sea levels are 10 metres higher than they are now and the average temperature 5 degrees hotter (I’m just making number up for example) it would *still* be a ‘working hypothesis’ that Humans did anything to cause those changes. Again, taking a leaf out of the Creationists phrase book, the self proclaimed ‘sceptics’ make banal undisputed statements (“AGW is just a hypothesis”, “Evolution is just a hypothesis”) and act as though this statement of fact is a revelation and some new insight. It only works on the gullible and ignorant, but there seems to be no shortage there unfortunately.
Science is not the business of proving things at all, at least not since the enlightenment when we moved from deductive to inductive reasoning. You can prove things in maths or logic, because there you deal with definite abstract concepts, but in empirical science there is always some level of uncertainty. The AGW thesis will *never* be ‘proved’ by science, because this is simply not what science does.
What climate science has done is tell us with an overwhelming weight of evidence that by far the most likely results of pumping CO2 (and other gases) into the atmosphere at the rates we will cause extreme shifts in our climate. The issue is not binary ‘they are right’ or ‘they are wrong’, it’s about the best guess. The best guess will always have some uncertainty, but the further a scenario is from the best guess the less likely it is. There is a chance that the modelling etc is so far wrong that we can pollute as much as we like without making any change to the climate, but that is highly unlikely when the available evidence is considered.
To go back to the electron example, we could have fundamental particle physics wrong since there are inconsistancies and problems with the current theory, but whatever replaces it (which would also only ever be a working hypothesis) would surely explain why thinking electrons did exist allowed us to do many wonderful things (including, say the Internet). In the same way, there are many aspects of present climate science that are probably ‘wrong’ in some way, however the current success in terms of our ability to model so many aspects of the climate system correctly (and hence be able to make predictions about the future given changes in atmospheric content) means that we are unlikely to be so wrong as to have the entire AGW hypothesis fall down. Possible, as any scientist would freely admit (even if you erronously think that fact is at all interesting or relevant) but unlikely.
We should back the odds on favourite, not the rank outsider with a dicky knee, because we can’t wait for the race to finish to find out the result.
thanks Bogdanovist…
I must say, you have probably put forward the best argument I have heard in a long time, perhaps ever.. better than the pollies anyway!!
The claims of consensus are hogwash. As are the claims of Steffen that there is no peer-reviewed research contradicting anthropogenic global warming claims. I will cite just for starters two from July 2009:
There are many more.
There are literally hundreds of scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, who do not endorse nor believe the IPCC report. The world’s largest scientific society, the American Chemical Society, just ran the editor of their monthly publication out on a rail for claiming “the science is settled” and that “the science is increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.”
There is in fact no evidence that man has caused global warming, as your own David Evans proves.
Why does Professor Steffen say what Minister Wong’s science advisors did not say, or could not say, in their response to Senator Fielding?
Thus far, Steffen has given us his political viewpoint on the subject. He has given us nothing of substance. Perhaps Steffen should answer the questions that Fielding posed to Minister Wong.
Fielding asked that Steffen attend a presentation to senators with Carter, which Steffen has declined. Perhaps Steffen should reconsider the invitation.
The Murdoch media were happy to trumpet Fielding’s stance. I wonder (and seriously doubt) they’ll cover credible rebuttals.
Jeffrey, have you read the letter? It’s pretty clear why Steffen didn’t meet with them.
I wouldn’t have met with him either. They really don’t need any more oxygen. The sooner Fielding’s out of the senate the better.
Is there any scenario at all in which your ardent CC denier will actually come around to the overwhelming weight of probability? Feilding appears to be asking questions for the sake of publicizing himself and simply ignoring the answers. Short of a burning message in the sky signed by god, mckyj57 and Feilding will stick to their version of the truth in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary.
The fundamental logical flow of the situation should really be:
a) Is there any chance (at all), given the vast reams of data for and against, that humans are contributing to climate change?
b) Is there any chance (at all) that the consequences of this change (if such it is) be, on balance, bad?
c) Is there any chance (at all), that reducing the crap we emit will help make it less bad?
Anybody with half a grasp on reality will answer yes to all three (given the broad qualifiers in play) and it then becomes a duty act on c. An answer of No to a, b or c means that you are a little too frivolous with your absolutes or your job relies on you answering no to obvious questions.
That Feilding is answering these questions for all of us, in a cheerfully faith based and absolute way, seems to demonstrate something of the futility of having this argument at all. Its strange though, given that we are more than ready to devote astounding amounts of effort in entertainment of the most far fetched possibilities with vastly smaller scale potential ramifications.
@Jeffrey - Firstly, Fielding’s questions were based on the false premise that temperatures haven’t risen in the last ten years. They have.
Secondly, Have you even read the response?
It should be fairly obvious. Fielding is making such a palaver about this because he wants to look like “a player”. The fact is the climate change denialist movement, if it can be enobled with such an epithet, is a disgracefully dishonest reactionary rump - driven by religious nutters, championed by political opportunists and quietely funded by carbon polluters.
You don’t have to be across the science to see that the vast body of credible scientific opinion decided on this issue long ago. But there remains a mischievous and deliberately ignorant rump of culture war warriors who want to turn this into something else. The same degree of premeditated fact-twisting is now evident in the US healthcare reform debate.
In the meantime, we have to put up with people like Fielding and others whose desperate desire to be noticed is so strong that they would willingly play games with the earth’s future (and our children’s future) by denying reality.
Ultimately, this is a war between reason on the one hand and the combined dark forces of superstition and greed on the other. I’d like to think the forces of reason will win this (Turnbull and Rudd aren’t that far apart), but these fringe dwellers need to be put in their place fast.
‘The sooner Fielding’s out of the senate the better.’ - Evan Beaver
Really? To be replaced by a sheep of either ALP or Coalition persuasion, incapable of voicing their own opinions for the duration of their six year term?
Fielding is bereft of ideas and I do not support his politics or headline seeking antics but politics is better served by the likes of Fielding who are at least prepared to have a go than yet more party hacks.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
John Scull, I think, has got inside Fieldings head.
Clarets concern is legitimate as engineering education is a bit special and if it alone occupies one’s skull anything is possible. In Fielding’s case its partnering something else that’s a bit special.
But living in a higher plane than engineering or scientific education, where humanity lives with attributes still totally beyond scientific or engineering explanation, like ‘innovation’ and ‘invention’, one can’t help trying to understand the dangers to be wrought on ‘nature’ the master by educated humans who (thinking it wise) slide into calling (scientifically) the other ‘gas of life’ (the vegitarian one) carbon dioxide a ‘polutant’. Something’s going wrong with more than just Fielding.
We can totally rely on Nature, the master, to sort it out as all we humans are doing is corupting natures natural climate change processes to our evisaged disadvantage just as we can totally rely on the super clever (by very clever ancient ancestors) concept of ‘original sin’ to evade modern psychology as an early psycholigical concept with profoundly meaningful status.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas #2
Bogdanovist deserves congratulation for a timely reminder that science is an human endeavour to understand nature (its behaviour laws) which/who in the end owns the game. Science is what it is and you understand that or not but it won’t serve you from just any convenient conceptual viewpoint.
For what’s it worth, I will class myself as a sceptic. My question to the masses is: What has happened in the last five to ten years that has people brainwashed about climate change. If you listen to all the so called experts, the world will end within 50 or so years if nothing is done about climate change. The fact is the world has been around for millions of years and will be around for millions more. What makes these so called experts experts all of a sudden. Where were these experts 10 years ago. Answer: Nowhere to be seen. To my thinking this garbage started when Al Gore decided to make a movie about climate change. Unfortunately, the supposed experts, Rudd and co have people brainwashed.
Mark Munro, if you are going to say something is garbage, then you had better say WHY it is garbage if you are going to have your opinion taken seriously.
The facts are that concern about climate change dates back to well before the Al Gore movie. The Kyoto Protocol was proposed in 1999 and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was agreed in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. Not exactly yesterday’s news.
Since that time the science has moved along to the point where there is overwhelming consensus in the climate science community that anthropogenic climate change is happening. As I heard the editor of the journal “Nature” recently state, “the debate is over”. There is a dearth of peer reviewed science that suggests otherwise.
Do you actually understand how science works? Getting consensus on an issue is not an easy thing; science is adversarial process. Climate scientists didn’t just wake up one morning and think “Hmmm … this must be how things are”. Science requires research, requires evidence to be produced and tested repeatedly and consistently before a consensus can be reached
To suggest therefore that the climate science community are “so called experts” would be analogous to calling your local GP a “so called medical practitioner”.
Which begs the question why Mike and people like him are reluctant to accept what is happening? Is it because they perceive that this is a “left wing” or a “green” issue because Al Gore made a movie about it? That would be a mistake. Acknowledging climate change is not about politics or philosophy or even economics (although it will undoubtedly affect all three). It’s about the science and science alone.
Here here Wiseguy.
The last time I checked, Senator Feilding represented 55,174 Australians (Victorians at that hehe) and I am getting kind of fed up with him skewing/polluting the debate on climate change.
To the general public, 2 30-second sound bites or comparable column inches somehow equates to equal weight of support for any given idea.
It doesn’t seem to matter that reporters are “tripping over” scientists who agree with the climate change hypotheses and they have to kickover some very far-flucg rocks to find the deniers/skeptics.
How do we organise an international “Hands up who thinks this AGW science is on the money” exercise amongst the worlds scientists?
I think it already exists. It’s called the IPCC.
Hence the sceptical argument that ‘they don’t allow dissenting views’ and they’re paid scientists so they’ve already been bought out…. yada yada yada.
The dissenters, at this late stage are either about to suffer personally (financially mostly) or are intentionally ignorant. I ignore them mostly.
THEN WHY IS HE SCARED OF A DEBATE IF HE THINKS HIS POSITION IS SO WATERTIGHT
There are plenty of respected scientists who dispute that Carbon causes global warming.
Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist at Adelaide University is just one of them.
He has recently written a book on it.
The geological record, which is an indisputable record of Earth’s history, shows NO correlation between Carbon Dioxide and global warming.
The Earth’s climate is changing as it always has.
Humans have to adapt.
We can spend money on trying to stop carbon dioxide emissions: a harmless gas that plants breathe and that does not cause climate change.
Or we can spend money on dams, weirs, breakwaters, water pipelines, sewage systems and the like.
That would be more productive in my view.
But the reason the UN doesn’t want this option is because the whole Carbon Dioxide scare has turned out to be very good for trade wars.
It enables them to further the socialist agenda: cripple the economies of the developed world and give China, India and the third world a competetive advantage.
It’s just another tariff. It’s a trade war being promoted by vested interests. Wake up people, there’s REAL environmental problems that desperately need attention:
Overpopulation, deforestation in the third world, chemical dumping, nuclear waste
He he. That’s funny ‘Cos ALL the scientist agree on your version of what the REAL environmental problems are …
HUMAN RIGHTS111, having the Professor Steffen debate climate change science with Senator Fielding would be akin to having Mike Tyson in the ring with Bindie Irwin; it would be brutal, bloody and not that entertaining either!
Professor Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” has been widely panned. In the words of one reviewer “Heaven and Earth” is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist.” It most certainly is not a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a reputable journal. Note also that Prof. Plimer is a geologist and not a climate scientist. He’s not the kind of person that I would be looking to take the lead from on climate change matters.
I dont know why people are slamming Fielding, not like Gore has any scientific credentials.
As we are all worried about the effect of carbon on climate change, why does Australia export hundreds of millions of tonnes of the stuff to China and Japan so that they can burn it???
@MadeInAustralia - whilst not a scientist at least Al Gore is credible. A published author, lauded journalist, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize…versus Fielding. Hmmm.
James, i’d do a little deeper research into al gore before going in to bat for him.
As for a consensus on anthropomorphic warming it all depends on how wide the definition with which you choose to weave your blanket - if it includes opinion that there is a possibility, then yes there is almost absolute agreement. if you narrow it down to a definitive and dramatic effect such as gore may prophesize (and profit from) then no such consensus exists outside of agenda driven or financially motivated interest groups. and most importantly, remember the argument of consensus is not a scientific argument.
There is no definitive evidence - there is only speculation and prediction - some akin to religious belief. heed the tug of emotional compulsion, but don’t be pulled blindly where it wills you, and don’t listen to salesmen.
and here’s a clue about ‘experts’ - we all follow our own path, and our own focus, and often stumble on, filtering out - consciously or not - signs along the way that suggest we may have taken a wrong turn. for those that walk slowly, to see and take another way is a smaller hurdle. for those that run headlong and eager, the signs are mere blurs that we rarely care to heed.
What on Earth are you people on about. Al Gore’s just a spokesman. The IPCC is the body that knows about this stuff. They’re VERY sure that we’re changing the planet. They’re also quite sure of what the outcomes might be. The fact that they’re models of the future doesn’t mean they’re wrong; just that there’s uncertainty about the predictions. So far the observations have been worse than the predictions.
Evan: Why is it that the far right feels impelled to knock every conceivable step forward in man’s knowledge as being a left-wing conspiracy? Mainly, they are unable to put forth any contributions towards learning something about a subject, unless it’s the Andrew Bolts of this world who go through publications picking out the arguments which buttress his existing beliefs.
Otherwise they sail forth, in blind hatred, of an idea, for Christ’s sake! An idea! Armed with a closed steel rat-trap mind, they lash out in impotent fury. At what? At an idea. It is so illogical is is grotesque. All one has to do to earn their emnity is to produce an idea. Conservatism is associated with closed minds. But why?
If they happened across a child who had been crippled by cadmium poisoning, some amongst them might offer the little boy/girl some monetary help. However, if the little girl could offer unarguable evidence that it was the fault of people who were ignoring the evils being perpetuated by unrestrained dumping into rivers of such a poisonous substance. Doubtless, she would be given a clout across the ears (I’m thinking the atrocious scandal of Minimata, Japan about thirty years ago).
That you try so hard to explain to these half-wits what happens with (over-breeding) and climate change makes you the most extraordinary human being. And, I wish you all the best success in your future posts.
Thank you.
The most salient point about the stupidity of Steve Fielding is in fact the stupidity of the Labor party. The Labor party decided to preference to disadvantage the Greens and advantage Fielding thus saddling us with this twit until he can be duly cast out at the next election. It is to the Labor party preference machine that our ire should be directed. Watch for signs of them assisting similar twerps at the next election. As it turned out it seemed that Labor’s main thrust was to create the appearance of doing something about climate change while shovelling money to a cabal of their major donors in the corporate world. A fairly straightfoward political arrangement, assisted by some unions who’d rather go down with the old ship than create jobs building a new one. As for the deniers and dolts can we not just give them a little website of their own where they can furiously agree with each other that all peer reviewed science is some kind of lefty plot and stop wasting our energies on them? Otherwise I’d suggest that people donate their time and money to groups who actually want to change policy to reduce emissions rather than do everything but.
Great debate! Bogdanovist has got the right approach though. His reasoned view is a great way to explain things.
“We should back the odds on favourite, not the rank outsider with a dicky knee, because we can’t wait for the race to finish to find out the result.”
The other way of putting is “are we willing to bet all our chips on red in the hope that the consensus of science is wrong… what if we were wrong… could we lose it all?” Does anyone have the right to place an all-or-nothing bet?
There is a reasonable probability the consensus science is wrong, but there appears to be a better probability that it is right. Remember, scientists still have 5 distinct and unproven theories as to how raindrops form - if they don’t understand this micro aspect of our climate, they could be misinterpreting the whole shebang. I am no scientist, and even if I read all the topical papers that consume our forests, I doubt I could make an educated decision as to which camp I was in based on my reading. Let’s be honest, who really can apart from the people making a living in climate study.
The next best thing is to weigh scientific opinion (not try and get caught up in the detail) and then take some pragmatic steps to ensure we don’t lose everything on the first bet. As Rupert Murdoch put it, if there is a risk, it would be imprudent not to insure against it. It is clear there is a significant risk (between 20% and 80% in my view) humans are warming the planet. A business risk of say only 1% causes companies to spend billions each year on insurance. Why is this different?
So let’s start insuring. Let’s spend a more on electricity to increase the renewable component; let’s spend a more on EV’s to reduce all gases; let’s take the steps now because it is a prudent thing to do. It’s too late when the ball lands on black and we have no chips left.
If there is anyone who could take Steve Fielding seriously exists in Crikey pages. I would ask them to consider this. Fielding went (according to him, at his own expense) overseas to get some scientific opinions regarding climate change.
When he came back he solemnly intoned that if there was no such an animal, otherwise God would have invented it. Work that one out. Why go to all that trouble and expense-if he did fund the trip?-to bring along a closed mind?
I rest my case.
Look, its all rather simple. Climate deniers say there’s nothing to worry about! So, in accordance with good conservative principles, they should reap what they sow!
Lets make sure that in years to come, when the results of this very interesting experiment are seen, the climate deniers get the full rich credit they so rightly deserve. I mean, according to them there’s nothing to worry about, so most of the feedback they will get will positive and grateful. I’m personally looking forward to them getting the feedback they so richly and rightly deserve…..
Just a little one for Human Rights 111. I take it you agree that the scientifically measured level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen markedly over the past few (maybe one hundred) years? Even Ian Plimer has noticed that. Over a similar period, and particularly in the last couple of decades, you may have read that sea level, world wide, has risen slightly - maybe a few millimetres, and seems to be continuing to rise.
In my view, it is not an unexpected human foible to entertain a curiosity about those two seemingly unconnected observations - I daren’t called them facts - even if only to establish whether there might be a connection.
If you found, after a bit more observation and research, that in fact the two measurable changes were taking place in lock-step, you might form the view that they were indeed connected.
Of course you could start building breakwaters and rock walls to keep the sea out of your city. Or you could move the city inland - along with the six billion other people who could see the sea rising. Or you could wonder about the rising CO2 level and start researching what might be causing it.
People who don’t want to move inland and who don’t have the resources to build dykes to keep the sea out of their cities, might like to ponder some of the numerous alternative options. Make up your own mind; you don’t need a scientist to inform you.
Hugh:
If CO2 levels were observed to be constantly rising, and for the past 10 years the temperature has not been rising, you might form the view that these facts were indeed NOT connected.
Even Penny Wong’s climate professionals did not dispute that temperatures have not risen in lockstep with the CO2.
Of course, IF CO2 has only a minor affect on temperatures, and IF temperatures were rising, then natural forces would seem to be at work in some mysterious way. Taking adaptive measures, expensive as they would likely be, is all that puny mankind can do to protect himself from powerful natural forces. It would be a shame to bet the farm on chasing the CO2 devil, then find out later that the sea continues to rise, eh?
Of course, adaptation runs contrary to the AGW mantra and is not very popular in some circles. But we mustn’t forget that adaptation is the key to species survival. The history of living things on the planet bears this out. Adaptation will protect us the effects of warming, regardless of the cause.
However, for the last 10 years, global warming has been on hold, much to the chagrin of AGW alarmists. I say we wait it out and see whether or not we need to begin adapting to the climate. At the moment we have too many “IFs” to resolve to take action, one way or another. I believe that we have time to invent affordable 24/7 alternatives to fossil fuels. Rushing to judgement on the cause and net harmful effects of climate change is not wise at this time. Alarmists say that global climate change will cause crop failures and starvation. So what have we done so far? We’ve started manmade food shortages by burning corn (as ethanol) in our cars. Wow, that was a big help. Now we hear how polluting the atmosphere with God only knows what to reflect sunlight is the answer. Each one of these cockamamie ideas can take hold and become institutionalized, for better or worse, forever!
Let’s not rush to judgement.
Excuse me Jeffrey Morton but I never once mentioned temperature and I don’t need your misguided corrections. I wrote only about CO2 levels and world sea levels. I haven’t heard anyone dispute the apparent measured rise in CO2 levels. And no one seems to be questioning the world wide observation that sea levels are rising - slowly for sure, and for what reason I am not qualified to say.
I make this observation because these two matters appear to be beyond dispute and can therefore be considered by lay members of the public to be ‘facts’.
Some have argued (elsewhere) that the oceans are connected to the centre of the earth and things are just equalising - that’s fantastic!
Others suggest that changes in atmospheric CO2 content are purely a natural fluctuation. That’s terrific too. But Human Rights 111 seemed intent on taking everyone out of the debate who won’t accept this expert or that contestable fact. I’m just suggesting that a little debate considering only the undisputed facts can get us all a long way. Whether ponderously or with a rush.
Hugh:
I may have misunderstood what your comment was driving at. I gathered that from reading your suggestion that there was a causal connection between rising CO2 and rising sea levels. I also got this from your remark regarding adaptation to rising sea levels, which I believed was sarcastic. From this, I heard your words to be using “rising CO2 and rising sea levels” as evidence that the one causes the other, which is both scientifically and politically controversial.
My reaction to your comment was to illustrate the opposite was true with regard to CO2 and temperature… that rising CO2 has had no discernable effect on temperatures for the past 10 years.
I apologize for assuming you believe that mankind’s fossil fuel emissions cause any significant climate change. You are a skeptic, as am I. I apologize for ruffling your feathers
Quick with labels, tardy with rationale, Jeffrey.
You are entitled to a view that surface temperature change is not effected by atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) level changes. Feel free to reject the whole idea of the ‘greenhouse effect’ if you like. I’m not a skeptic (thanks) so I’ll be sticking with my high school science and years of observations inside actual glasshouses, for the time being - despite the as-yet unexplained vagaries of “the past 10 years”.
I notice though that you, and some other declared skeptics, are not interested at all in the phenomenon of sea level rise. You haven’t (as far as I know) contested the evidence or any of the numerous explanations. Some day it may be discovered, for example, that rather than the increased energy inputs of the greenhouse effect being registered in surface temperature changes (on those pesky models called thermometers) the energy is consumed expanding the volume of the water in the oceans. From little things, big things grow.
Hugh:
Perhaps I did understand what you were driving at after all.
Regarding sea level rises, from what I’ve read, sea levels need water to run off the land into the seas (melting sea ice won’t increase sea levels). Thus, atmospheric temps must warm to cause glaciers to melt, then run off into the sea. Despite ever-increasing CO2 atmospheric increases (attributed, rightly or wrongly, to man’s burning of fossil fuels), there has been no significant warming of the atmosphere for the past ten years. Since SOME glaciers are receding (melting?), it seems likely that warm air circulation has shifted and is affecting these glaciers. What has caused atmospheric circulation patterns to vary is anybody’s guess, but some people will no doubt blame CO2 for changing the direction that the wind blows.
It is looking more and more like natural forces are what we have to deal with, thus the need to give consideration to adaptive measures. Sea level rises are occuring very slowly for now, and we seem to have plenty of time to adapt. I see no need to chase the CO2 monster and spend the wealth of nations in the process.
As I see it, the notion that humans can control the temperature of the planet is the stuff of science fiction.
So, you agree that something is causing sea levels to rise and you are satisfied that “…it seems likely that warm air circulation has shifted…”(whatever that means - I thought it shifted all the time), melting glaciers and adding runoff to the oceans. What has caused the circulation to shift? Anybody’s guess. That’s it? Nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the El Nino effect or the Coriolus effect? Just anybody’s guess. And all those climate scientists have no idea what they’re talking about? Those IPCC people are just pissing into space to fill their pockets…what a rort!
Where will it end? Most planners and engineering gurus I’ve read suggest we prepare for 500mm to 1000mm (one metre) sea level rise this century. Which is going to threaten a helluva lot of coastlines around the world. So you prescribe moving to “adaptive measures”, which I suppose means dykes and seawalls or canal estates? Or do you mean prayer? Anyway, thinking of dykes and seawalls makes me wonder just how far around the world’s coastal cities and productive land these seawalls will get before we have spent the “wealth of nations” you seem so protective about. Even our fantastic mining industry won’t be able to supply the kind of demand for plain old rock you’re on about. At least, not before the diesel has run out. Which is some kind of adaptation I guess.
at the end of the day IF there is a risk, lets just insure against it and leave the debate on results for 100 years time (I, won’t be there to debate of course..!!).
A wise man once said, “if my auntie had balls, she’d be my uncle”. So, lets not risk turning the whole planet into one big Sahara desert by debating over our premiums!
Jeffrey Morton. If you find it is so difficult to believe that humans could control the temperature of the planet to be the stuff of science fiction. Then how do you account for over population and mass utilization of coal fired power, having caused the problem in the first place?
HUGH:
You are suggesting that adaptation is impossible, and that we must all be doomed (“…Even our fantastic mining industry won’t be able to supply the kind of demand for plain old rock you’re on about…” [to build seawalls]). However, it’s far-fetched to imagine a lack of dirt and rocks for building levees and sea walls. Give us all a break, man! Your emotional attachment to the AGW orthodoxy is making you say things that make no sense, and which cast doubt on your ability for rational thought. We all expect better from you.
SIMMOBC:
There’s little risk that the world will turn into one big Sahara desert. In 1975, temperatures were uncommonly low. Scientists were were then sounding the alarm for a possible ice age! Then for the next 20 years, temperatures rose. Scientists began sounding the alarm for harmful warming, blaming manmade CO2 as the culprit. That takes us to about 1998, Since then, despite ever-increasing rises in CO2, air temps have not risen in any significant amount. In other words, 30 years ago we had just gotten over scares of global cooling. Then we had 20 years of global increases in air temperatures. And for the past 10 years, we’ve seen temperatures flatten and begin to decline. How does this translate into “one big Sahara” thing? Why the crisis mentality?
VENISE:
You asked me: “…how do you account for over population and mass utilization of coal fired power, having caused the problem in the first place?” As I stated in an earlier comment (to Hugh), I am an AGW skeptic. I may even be (Heaven forbid) a “closet denier”. I never said, nor would I agree, that over population or coal powered electrical plants have any bearing of significance on global climate. I cannot see, nor do I believe, that we are facing a global climate problem, unless air temperatures begin to rise or continue to fall, by any material amount. Even then, the relationship of air temperatures to rising CO2 has been discounted from observations over the past 10 years (and also in the much older geological record). Then I would only conclude that natural climate cycles are still at work, and that we might give consideration to adaptive planning.
Jeffrey - the “sahara” reference was just a figment of my imagination.. For what it is worth, I am happy to sit on the fence with this whole debate however I think there is no harm taking out a little insurance policy… I have private health, have never used it, but am happy to keep it!
To Simmobc - if you’re sitting on the fence what is insurance for? In fact, what is the insurance you think you’ve got?
To Jeffery, calm yourself down old mate. You mention my “emotional attachment” and head off (for simmobc) down the no-temperature-increase-since-1998 track - again. You won’t find any comfort there unless the sea level rise and sea acidity rise peters out. Your whole glacier melt and warm air circulation thing doesn’t match the evidence although that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. It’s still a loose end which demands some sort of settlement.
I try to make sense of the things we know for sure. We know for sure that atmospheric CO2 content is rising but you are sure it is not connected in any way to human activity - even though there’s an uncanny timing correlation with increasing human industrial activity. I don’t think the science is saying that the whole thing is caused by human activity, it’s just the spike of the last century that looks ‘unnatural’ and demands attention. We needn’t jump immediately to extreme positions (catastrophe, crisis, call it what you will) but we can’t just dismiss the evidence either. I think that’s what Al Gore referred to as the inconvenient truth (amongst whatever else he said) and it sure is inconvenient if the majority of the world’s political systems decide we must take action.
We know for sure - and you agree - that sea levels are rising. You dismiss that as some sort of natural fluctuation but you can’t really be satisfied with an empty and meaningless explanation such as you have used in an earlier post. Empty and meaningless is as problematic as crisis and catastrophe - both extremes will be frustrated by a political settlement which charts a middle course - a course which acknowledges that something is amiss and it seems to have a direct connection to human CO2 emissions.
I love when people slam Fielding, a trained engineer for his lack of expertise on GW.
sorry what was Al Gores Qualies again…ohh thats right…nothing.
MADEINAUSTRALIA: You say If “Fielding, a trained engineer”, as if this alone spoke volumes for the man’s intellect.
When he came back from his self-funded??? trip overseas-his effort to talk to the scientists on the world stage re climate change. He made a couple of thought provoking comments. One was to the effect that he had only spoken to the scientists who denied the existence of CC. The other was a complete slap in the face to anyone on the planet who was capable of thought. Namely, Climate Change didn’t exist because God would have to have invented it. Yet He didn’t. Yep, no doubt about it, Senator Fielding is a genius.
Al Gore’s “qualies” are that he’s a politician - in case you hadn’t noticed. Politicians are what we employ to be the ‘meat in the sandwich’ or the ‘shock absorber’ - that moves the electorate from this position to that position by that mysterious and painless process which non-politicians, especially scientists, can’t possibly explain. A perfect example is John Howard introducing the GST. Do you imagine that Meg Lees was an economics heavyweight or the majority of Australians actually wanted a GST?
Most politicians who are now engaged in the climate change process are better off without scientific qualifications (or any pretense to them) because explaining science (any science) to the electorate would be harder than teaching fish to ride bicycles.
Sorry Hugh, didn’t realize Gore was still in office and hadn’t actively turned down runs at the presidency in 2004 and 2008. Whereas Fielding seems to be trying any trick to save his worthless hide from electoral annihilation.
Hugh, politicians are in fact just like you. They flow with popular opinion rather than use any reason. There approval or otherwise of any science is irrelevant because they will use any opportunity to jump an any bandwagon. Its kind of like the blind leading the blind.
Welcome to your new religion… “Global Warming”…….or is it………”Climate Change”. Better stick with CC because it will have a longer life and better fit the evidence.
That’s right Loveyuhsall. Politicians are just like YUHSALL, put there by us. ie. all of us. And their connection to science is irrelevant because of the reason I gave and for your reason too. Blind leading the blind? You and me are both part of the electorate, old mate. If that’s a religion, well you’re stuck with it too….unless you’re a non-voter, in which case good luck to you.
And Chris - Al Gore will always be a politician. Or did you mistake him for a film star?
Hugh-Venise…
sorry what were Gores qualies again?
Al Gore’s qualifications are totally irrelevant to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change. He is not a climate change scientist and does not purport to be. As a former politician he is merely a communicator when it comes to this issue. The validity of climate change science does not rest on what people think of Al Gore. That would be confusing the messenger for the message!
So if you are a climate change denier simply because you don’t like Al Gore’s politics, frankly, you are going to have to come up with something better than that to persuade me and others that you have a valid and sound position.
You need to explain it to me again Hugh. Al Gore as a politician is being driven by consensus politics to represent a position on behalf of an electorate that he no longer represents, while Steve Fielding (who fell backwards into climate change research 5 minutes ago) is bravely challenging the veracity of the scientific method while looking like an unelectable fool in the process? Is that really what you are saying?
Chris, a few posts back, madeinaustralia made a quip to the effect that Al Gore had no “qualies” - which I took to mean Gore had no qualifications (ie. scientific qualifications) to be participating in the climate change debate.
I didn’t think that was really relevant in this blog where no one’s qualifications are in dispute so I simply responded that Al Gore was/is a politician (ie. not a scientific expert) with his own role to play and he seemed to be doing just that. I referred to Al Gore in the first place only to access that phrase attributed to him - ‘an inconvenient truth’ - which I think is an excellent descriptor for the situation facing humanity. A less attractive descriptor might have been ‘up shit creek without a paddle’, and no doubt there is someone out there who is sure we have a paddle but we have hold of it by the wrong end. Maybe that’s Steve Fielding?
A parable for the Global Warming alarmists
“Chicken Little”” is a story for teaching courage in the face of unsubstantiated FEAR.
Don’t be a chicken little. Don’t be afraid.
Characters
Narrator
Chicken Little (IPCC)
Henny Penny (Penny Wong)
Ducky Lucky (Al Gore)
Goosey Loosey (Bob Brown)
Turkey Lurkey (Kevin Rudd)
Villain: Foxy Loxy (UN)
Narrator: Chicken Little was at the beach one day when an the sun was really hot. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She got so hot and flustered, half her feathers fell out.
Chicken Little: “Help! Help! The AGW is destroying the earth! I have to go tell the king!”
Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.
Henny Penny: “Where are you going, Chicken Little?”
Chicken Little: “Oh, help! AGW is destroying the earth!”
Henny Penny: “How do you know?”
Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”
Henny Penny: “This is terrible, just terrible! We’d better run and tell the king.”
Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.
Ducky Lucky: “Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?”
Chicken Little & Henny Penny: “AGW is destroying the earth! AGW is destroying the earth! We’re going to tell the king!”
Ducky Lucky: “How do you know?”
Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach.”
Ducky Lucky: “Oh dear, oh dear! We’d better make a movie!”
Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.
Goosey Loosey “Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”
Chicken Little: “We’re running for our lives!”
Henny Penny: “AGW is destroying the earth!”
Ducky Lucky: “And we’re running to tell the king!”
Goosey Loosey: “How do you know that AGW is destroying the earth?”
Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”
Goosey Loosey: “Goodness! Then I’d better run with you.”
Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across the country. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..
Turkey Lurkey: “Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”
Chicken Little: “Help! Help!”
Henny Penny: “We’re running for our lives!”
Ducky Lucky: “AGW is destroying the earth!”
Goosey Loosey: “And we’re running to tell the king!”
Turkey Lurkey: “How do you know that AGW is destroying the earth?”
Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”
Turkey Lurkey: “Oh dear! I always suspected the earth would end someday. I’d better run with you.”
Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.
Foxy Loxy: “Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a COLD day?”
Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) “Help! Help!” It’s not a COLD day at all. AGW is destroying the earth, and we’re running to tell the king!”
Foxy Loxy: “How do you know that AGW is destroying the earth?”
Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”
Foxy Loxy: “I see. Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”
Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that AGW is destroying the earth. They remained under his control all the days of their life
I take it you are the ‘narrator’ LOVEYUHSALL. Which is kinda strange because you have written a parable about unsubstantiated fear and deliberately made yourself the message and the messenger. Duh? Why not take your own advice before dumping it on others.
Also, you left out Senator Fielding and Will Steffen, the actual subjects of this news item. Read Steffen’s letter to Fielding (the link is there) if you want to understand how to deal with fearmongers.
HI YOUSEALL: If it’s religion you’re after you have missed the boat. The New Religion is Home Birthing.
Now to your parable. You don’t think a story/parable needs an antagonist and a protagonist; as in literature? In which case you missed out the whole point of the exercise. Professor Will Steffan is the protagonist and one dreary little Oz senator who, but for the stupidity of the Labor party would never have surfaced in the first place is the antagonist.
If you wish to have any creds at all you could start with re-writing your parable. A good name for the beloved Senator Steve Fielding would be the Holy Turkey. And Professor Steffan: Light and reason.
Hugh. The characters in the parable don’t matter that much. Its just a parable. You can be the Narrator if you choose. The AGW proponents are using fear to motivate and promote their agenda. This parable is about reacting to fear rather than exploring the facts. Fear is not thevidence, it only grabs headlines and motivates people to make decisions about something that may never happen.
Steffen’s letter re-enforces that he is also caught up with chicken little. He doesn’t want a discussion with people who disagree. He has made up his mind, like you, that the “sky is falling” and he only wants to talk to people who agree with him. He should have taken the chance to get information from Carter & Franks to avert ultimately ending up in hands of Foxy Loxy. Good science is a continual investigation, not a one-time event. Any other response reflects an unacceptable arrogance
Fear is always accompanied by the mandatory bullies who want to stop listening and enforce there opinion on the rest of the community.
I for one will not be following chicken little and his new religion based on the current lack of evidence nor will I submit to the bully boys tactics of those who promote fear to motivate change. If you want change, give us the facts without the personal attacks.
Venise: Thanks for proving my point by singling out (bullying) Senator Fielding, the heritic, who questioned your new religion.
By the way. I respect Senator Fielding for seeking information instead of following “chicken little”, regardless of the outcome. It takes some courage and personal integrity to withstand the unnecessary personal attacks on your character and your beliefs.
LOVEYUHSALL: You missed the absolute quality, integrity and courage “to withstand the unnecessary personal attacks on your character and your beliefs.” Stupidity. Aka that indefinable character trait which reveals a person unable to comprehend the truth which is circling around him.
It’s wonderful to be a god’s own. It absolves one from having to think about anything. As in Global Warming doesn’t exist because god hasn’t got around to inventing it.
BTW: Are you trying to suggest that I’m in favour of this new religion of Home Birthing? Having spent some time reading the comments of these aggressive, awkward and unfortunate females-one gross lady sang a tuneless and tasteless song to the Minister for Health. It was a demeaning experience. No, I am not guilty.
Loveyuhsall, I started with two ‘facts’. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing and sea levels are rising. Nothing else, just those two. No threats, no psychobabble, no Bob Carter. I’m not interested in any religions (new or old) or any ‘tactics’ (bully boy, character, personal or belief attacks). I think that finding an explanation for the unexpected and inconvenient CO2 and sea level increase is a challenge - to our communal intelligence, to our democratic traditions and to our personal ideologies. I don’t want to resort to anything other than discussion - others have the political and financial levers in their hands for now; maybe later you and I will be reaching for them. Do we have anything in common (language, aspiration, motivation) or are we destined to sulk in our respective corners for lack of interest. In this blog the original author (Keane) and the two subjects (Fielding and Steffen) have provided us with a forum and a field. I don’t need to be marked with a metaphor (‘chicken little’ et al) and you won’t benefit from that exercise. But stay in the game. We all might benefit from the exchange.
Hugh, those who study solar cycles have argued for years that when solar cycle 23 ends the earth will enter a period of extended cooling, some solar scientists reccomend increasing CO2 as a plan to combat this…Ive read about 40 papers on this now…from eminemt NASA and MIT scientists…all have been ignored by the majority of IPCC studies….Or not even mentioned…
can anyone give me more info on the impact of solar cycles on the earths climate and how this is taken into account by Climate modellers? including its impact on CO2 global warming????
thanks in advance.
How about chapter 2 of the most recent IPCC report, the one you say ignores solar cycles:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Section 2.7.1.2