|
One of Australia’s premier economic policy bodies, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, is giving a platform to climate denialist William Kininmonth in December as part of what it calls a “climate change debate”, despite the absence of anyone to challenge Kininmonth’s rejection of mainstream climate science.
Kininmonth styles himself a “consulting climatologist” but is a retired meteorologist who has published no peer-reviewed work on climate science. He argues that greenhouse emissions make a trivial contribution to global warming and instead natural variability is to blame for rising temperatures.
A CEDA spokeswoman told Crikey today:
We have received a number of requests from members to hear more about the scientific debate on climate change and so we elected to deliver this members’ only event. Our intention was to organise this discussion as a genuine debate between a speaker who could advance the view of the IPCC and a speaker who would advance the contrary position. We made several invitations to scientists who endorse the IPCC position (or indeed are currently lead IPCC authors). For various reasons, unfortunately, none were able to accept our invitation. As for the contrary position, we originally invited Ian Plimer who was unavailable. Mr Kininmonth had accepted our invitation to speak.
We feel that it is better to offer the opportunity for our members to hear his perspective directly and make their own minds up about the validity or otherwise of his arguments. The session will be moderated and there will be ample opportunity for attendees to pose questions and comments.
We have already hosted speakers who would represent the IPCC view at past events. We plan to schedule another opportunity for our members to hear from scientists who endorses the IPCC position and can outline why the IPCC regards the science as “settled”.
CEDA, which states that it is committed to “engaging the brightest minds in the search for the best policy ideas” will charge guests over $100 to hear Kininmonth speak unchallenged for two hours on 4 December in Melbourne.
| 
9 Comments
Just another example of the creeping fascism engendered by the AGW cult. Free speech isn’t really your thing, is it Bernard? So what if some old weatherman is given a platform on which to relieve himself? What are you afraid of? Very unCrikey of you old chap.
William Kininmonth is a bit more than a retired meteorologist who hasn’t published any peer reviewed papers on climate. He is the retired head of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Climate Centre. You don’t reach that level if you are ignorant of climate; I would have thought that axiomatic.
The proposition that climate change is solely caused by human intervention is in fact not settled, nor is there any “consensus” among climate scientists.
There are a number of questions that are indeed not settled. For example to what degree is global warming anthropogenic, and what degree is it related to the natural variation of climate over periods of say centuries rather than decades.
There is also the problem of predicting future climate on a regional level, say for Australia, rather than the globe.The effect of El Nino is pretty well understood, and can be predicted in the short term, but future events can’t predicted. If you can’t predict future El Ninos or La Ninas which cause major disruption to global weather, how can you rely on golobal models out say fifty years as some appear to think?
If you would like a peer reviewed paper how abot this one?
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/global_temperature_change.pdf
A Climate Change debate?? oh, Bernard, be afraid, be very afraid!
Playing the man again, I’m afraid.
Kinimonth was head of our National Climate Centre. So are you saying that he should not be heard on the subject of climate change?
Sounds like censorship to me. Once we go down the path of suppressing unpopular view points we are lost.
Anyone who has followed Kininmonth’s rants in the press would realise that he is past it and now off on another planet. Alex
I’m fascinated by the thought of who is paying $1,000 to hear him. It wouldn’t be tax deductible as part of ‘professional seminars etc” would it? Show me someone who’d pay that out of their own kick.
Rather like biz class on planes, it is ALWAYS tax deductible as a “biz expense”.
FYI I heard reliable reports of a well-attended meeting at the Hawthorn Town Hall a little over a year ago where Prof David Karoly debated Kininmonth. Karoly had made rather dismissive claims that he would wipe the floor with Kininmonth beforehand but the audience was, on the whole, left more on Kininmonth’s side than Karoly’s.
Kininmonth BTW does support the view that the global temperature is likely to rise by about 1 degree Celsius (by 2100 or somewhat earlier in the last half of this century - I’m not sure/don’t remember) and attributes at least half a degree to AGW. I understand his main concern is the errrors made in IPCC models about evaporation, precipitation, poleward transfer of heat and, perhaps clouds (including albedo). He has also noted that the work relied on from before the mid 1980s embodied far too little understanding of the ENSO cycles and similar oceanic cycles.
Yep, the lunar right is desperately pushing any waffler they can find with a skerrick of respectability and pretending it’s adding to the scientific debate.
Another egregious example is Robert Gottliebsen on businessspectactor.com singing the praises of Lord Monckton, who is just arrived from his US tour where he peddled his inanity with intellectual giants like Glenn Beck. But according to Robert, it all must be kosher, because, well, he’s been interviewed by Alan Jones!
(Monckton’s thesis is that AGW is a plot to establish one world government…need I say more?)
Kinnimoth’s peculiar brand of denial is based on some esoteric stuff about evaporative cooling ie more heat, more evaporation, hence more cooling.
His argument is addressed properly on realclimate.org and is essentially that the net energy in the atmosphere remains the same ie evaporation and condensation are the reverse processes, and only re-radiation (which is reduced by CO2 and other agents) actually reduces the net energy of the earth.
No coincidence then that the right wing denialists are trotting out their favourite ‘experts’ at this time, is there?
We need never fear real debate. But one person speaking on one side of the issue is not debate.
There must come a point when some “sides” are no longer listened to. “Smoking is not harmful to you.” Some qualified medical doctors use to say that. They had the credentials, and they probably smoked… but they actually said it is not harmful. Now we don’t listen to them. We don’t invite them to speak to give a “balanced debate”. It would be ridiculous to do so.
Some things don’t get equal air time any more. Nor should they. But they use to. Popular journalists and politicians and business interests use to promote “the other side.”
Until we really start feeling the pain of climate change… until it is emperically undeniable…. until parts of the Aussie coastline are under water … some people just wont believe it. And then, as Andrew Bolt is pulled off the roof on his home just before it falls into the ocean,
, he might still say “its just an anomily… there is no change. Everything is fine! And smoking doesn’t hurt you. And man never walked on the moon”.
Please don’t call one man talking about his minority position view, a debate!