Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

The World

Jul 29, 2011

Rundle: pen-pinching Klaus a prized Righter, not a freedom fighter

Poetic really, that the Czechs should present us with two examples of humanity, under the name Vaclav.

Share

Freedom and competition are always good, which is why the two major Right organisations in Australia have brought out key European crackpots at the same time. The CIS has Thilo Sarrazin, amateur geneticist and campaigner against inter-racial s-x, at its Big Ideas gabfest, while the IPA has the wacky Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and anti-global warming campaigner.

Klaus is prized by the Right, as a champion of freedom, promoting free-markets, etc, wherever he goes. He’s prized by the media too, for generating exciting vision. While in Chile, signing a declaration, he pocketed an expensive pen, the event captured on video, going viral on YouTube. In Australia he refused to go through parliamentary security, although that event appears to be mired in confusion.

What he’s best at though,and wheeled around for, is for labelling climate change as a fraud and Greens as the new communists. Klaus, an economist, is satisfied that any scientific arguments for climate change are “junk” and that no reputable scientist believes them, which will be news. In denouncing the Greens as the new communists, he uses the same negating rhetoric that is part of the cult of hate directed against democratic Left movements these days. Here he is quoted in a Miranda Devine story:

“Twenty years ago we still felt threatened by the remnants of communism. This is really over,” Klaus said.

“I feel threatened now, not by global warming — I don’t see any — (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature …”

He said environmentalists had been arguing for decades that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, using various farcical ploys from the exhaustion of natural resources to the threat of “imminent mass poverty and starvation for billions”.

Those same environmentalists shamelessly talk now about dangerous global warming.

“They don’t care about resources or poverty or pollution.

“They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them.

“I used to live in a similar world called communism …”

Yes, indeed he did. And rather well. Klaus presents himself as a brave dissident against communism, but he made his accommodations with it and then some. He played no role in the Prague Spring — sufficient to attract the attention of authorities — and while others were going to labour camps, was permitted to go the US, to do postgraduate study at Cornell, the sure sign of a trusty.

When he returned in the early 1970s, there was a moment of apparent dissent to which Klaus will often point to — he was labelled an “anti-socialist malcontent” and barred from various academic bodies. Other dissidents similarly excluded, were consigned to factory jobs in the backblocks. Klaus wasn’t one of them — instead he went to work for the Czech state bank, eventually rising to a senior position.

Thus, for two decades, this lonely voice against the “new communism” prospered well under the old communism, serving the economic needs of a Marxist-Leninist state, and travelling abroad frequently, the privilege accorded to a loyal apparatchik. The ’70s progressed. Just as many dissidents were being allowed to return to mainstream life, charter 77 came along — the protest against the lack of democracy and free speech, sparked by the repression of a rock band. Thousands faced the agonising choice of again going up against a monolithic state. Most did it, facing a new round of prison and internal exile.

Klaus didn’t — indeed for many Czechs he’s become a positive symbol of those who didn’t dissent. As a Czech commentator explained to Radio Free Europe in 2007, on the 30th anniversary:

Frantisek Sulc, an editor for the daily Lidove noviny, says most Czechs probably don’t feel guilty for not having signed Charter 77. Instead, he says, they probably just don’t like it that a small group of dissidents — only about 2000 signed Charter 77 — seem to get all the credit for helping to bring down communism.

Also worth nothing, Sulc says, is that with Havel out of office, very few if any current political leaders signed Charter 77, including President Vaclav Klaus.

“[Klaus] really mirrors the feeling of, I would say, most Czechs,” Sulc says. “That is, ‘We didn’t do anything bad, we didn’t hurt anybody, we just tried to survive and tried to live’. And now, there’s a group of the few people, a small group, who is now taking all the benefits and the heroism for putting down the communist regime.

Could Klaus have chosen not to work so directly with a communist state? Others did. Here’s Jefim Fistein, the only non-Czech signatory of the charter:

While in Prague, Jefim worked as an independent translator, despite his training in journalism. Says Jefim, “Although I was trained in journalism, I didn’t want to work in Czechoslovakia because I didn’t want to serve the regime in any way.”

Klaus, by contrast, devoted his talents to ensuring its continued viability. Having faced a genuinely totalitarian enemy, with the capacity to harm, he largely ducked the fight; facing green parties and activists using democratic and peaceful means he won’t debate them — he simply denounces them. Purporting to be a foe of communism, he instead brings all the techniques required for getting ahead in a torpid Brezhnevite state to an open society. Simple criticism doesn’t work — your opponent must be labelled an enemy of the people, a wrecker, an anti-human, in order to be defeated.

Poetic really, that the Czechs should present us with two examples of humanity, under the name Vaclav — one, Havel, who would serve several prison terms, and suffer two decades of harassment, only to emerge into post-communist Europe as a social democrat and an early proponent of Green politics, a man renowned for his generosity, politeness, breadth of thought, and humour; and Klaus, the notoriously rude state bank loyalist who wouldn’t stick his neck out, who denounces democrats as Stalinists, but made his peace with the latter; who vowed to oppose the EU, but signed the anti-democratic Lisbon treaty without a squeak; who purported to stand for the freedom of small nations, yet supported the Russian invasion of Georgia to the hilt.

And how inevitable that the IPA would choose the latter over the former. For who can doubt that the think tank’s bright boys and girls are, above all, conformists, who, in other circumstances would slide easily into the same sort of accommodations as Klaus, the grey roosts of apparatchik culture, and do Marxian calculations of the falling rate of profit to eight decimal places as eagerly as they read Hayek and Von Mises. After all, it’s easy to pretend you believe in freedom if you arrange it so that you never meet anyone who really stood up for it.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

86 comments

Leave a comment

86 thoughts on “Rundle: pen-pinching Klaus a prized Righter, not a freedom fighter

  1. granorlewis

    It seems clear that Rundle has neither read nor listened to Klaus, but simply chooses a couple of quotes from certain newspapers that he would normally dismiss as tripe.

    Such disparaging diatribe is not normally written by this scribe, but he has let himself down badly with his spin on this occasion.

    The opinions expressed in economic terms by Klaus – an eminent economist – are at least as credible as are those of Flannery, Stern, Garnaut etc. And it is beyond doubt that those three are as wrapped up in political, and politically-motivated spin as they could possibly be.

  2. linda

    Surely the most bizarre and amusing plaint of the denialists & “I know better than all the scientists” types is this strange fear of socialism/communism. Its 2011, not 1911! To accuse the modern ALP of being socialists is good for a belly laugh, but NASA?!! Klaus & his ilk are either lying charlatans protecting their vested interests or complete Loony Tunes

  3. mattsui

    @GRANORLEWIS.
    If there are errors in fact, or obvious counterpoints to, Rundle’s article. Could you please elaborate as to what they are?
    In this case I’m sure there is more than one side to the Vaclav Klaus story. But you can’t just call bullshit and walk away. Give us your version.

  4. Guy Rundle

    Klaus isnt making an economic argument Granor – he’s making a scientific and then a political one. He’s suggesting that he has sufficient expertise to judge the science of climate change – which he doesn’t — and then to assess the Greens, democratic and peaceful political groupings, as conspiratorial Communists. You know, the ones he worked for for two decades.

  5. Tim Macknay

    I have often wondered whether Vaclav Klaus’s appeal as a speaker outside Czech actually stems from people confusing him with Vaclav Havel.

  6. Mark M

    I doubt Klaus is even judging the science, which implies that he has looked carefully at the fact that C02 is climate forcing and found the proof wanting.

    I think dismiss is a better word.

  7. Down and Out of Sài Gòn

    Granorlewis: let’s look at comments like “[Environmentalists] hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them.” That’s not even a strawman argument, which generally takes a negative aspect and blows it up beyond all proportion. It’s more like complete bullshit. Ergo: Vaclav Klaus is a bullshit artist.

    In my experience, a lot of the Greenies are good fun to be with, especially the younger ones. They’re more into the tribal drumming than the mass denunciations – something which Vaclav seems to be very familiar with. I’ve know folks who’ve done forest sit-ins. I’ve gone to the odd Confest, and more regularly at Woodford. I live in West End. As Hunter S. Thompson would say, I know these people in my goddamn blood. Confusing environmentalists with Calvinists is just bloody stupid.

    Tim: you’re probably on the money. Havel was the man who invited Frank Zappa to be Cultural Attache of Czechoslovakia.

  8. LisaCrago

    But does working to discredit this person’s past living under the USSR actually discredit the Klaus argument?

    He is talking about governments telling people just how they should live their life. Now someone who lived in the USSR DOES know exactly what central control is all about. If we are not careful in this country we will soon be afraid to live as we wish too and are already being told what is good for us and what is not, what we should drive, eat, smoke, drink, the list is bloody endless and about to get worse.

    to pick up on one point
    Calling The Greens the new Communists is an insult; to those who are still members of the Communist Party, and it is alive and well.

  9. davidk

    Thanks Guy, I didn’t know any of that. I did wonder at the time how he came to be gainfully employed doing computer modelling under a totalitarian regime. Has the IPA taken over the national press club or has it always been in control?

  10. Down and Out of Sài Gòn

    “If we are not careful in this country we will soon be afraid to live as we wish too…”

    At this point, I can imagine a First Dog On The Moon cartoon with a Slippery-Slope-A-Meter going “Woop! Woop! Arooga! Arooga!” and other various sound effects.

    Lisacrago: Czechoslovakia went Communist not because of some stealthy, sneaky political correctness crawling into everywhere like Lantanas in a national park. They went Communist because the democrats were killed, expelled or imprisoned in a fairly short time scale.

  11. michael r james

    @LISACRAGO Posted Friday, 29 July 2011 at 4:45 pm

    Amazing how you just hear what you want. What about the other Vaclav? He also lived under the USSR yoke so you don’t think his actions have as much validity as Klaus? And as Guy has so thoroughly elucidated while Klaus was growing into a fat cat in the State bank (! how Kafkaesque is this? probably responsible for dismissing loans to dissenters and democratic rabble on a secret police blacklist) Havel was fighting for the very freedoms Klaus is abusing today. At first one may think Klaus learnt well the black art of negating any evidence contrary to his cherished beliefs, but no, it is so cackhanded it could only appeal to the deluded who queue at the feet of Lord Monckton or Ian Plimer, or the ideologues like the IPA with their hands held out for cash. With the two Vaclavs, as with the likes of the IPA/CIS etc, it comes down to working in the national interest or working for self interest. For the latter to succeed in a democracy they rely upon the completely clueless like Lisacrago who if she actually lived in a police state like Czechoslovakia would probably have been an informant dobbing in the likes of Havel.

  12. nicolino

    So the very people who saved the Franklin are an insult to the communists!!

  13. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Great stuff Guy.

    “………..I feel threatened now, not by global warming — I don’t see any — (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives,…………”

    “I don’t see any”, I, I, me, me, my life, my life – all this means –fuck your grand children we are talking about my life and he’s right, he won’t see any all the way to his little ‘forever lie down in a hole time’ but fuck the lives of those that survive passed him. Definition of a psychopath (in hiding).
    His brain has the classical physical construction of the genetic psychopath (known to be seductive, impressive and charismatic) on his brain scan you will see it – can’t change your brain scan even with plastic surgery.

    @MICHAEL R JAMES — Posted Friday, 29 July 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    Great post, top questions, the danger of being conned by his type just isn’t in the experience nor knowledge base for most who can’t attribute real value to real logic.

  14. LisaCrago

    But does working to discredit this person’s past living under the USSR actually discredit the Klaus argument?

  15. michael r james

    [@LISACRAGO Posted Friday, 29 July 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    But does working to discredit this person’s past living under the USSR actually discredit the Klaus argument?]

    First, what argument? He simply wants to choose his facts. This approach is right out of the Stalinist guidebook: choose a few disreputable Lysencko-like “scientists” (Monckton, Plimer, Carter) to say the science is on their side blah blah. He insults and dismisses the hard work of thousands and thousands of specialist climate scientists with a wave of his hand.

    Second, yes, for someone who rants that “the Greens are the new Communists” and beats his chest about standing up for freedom while actually when he had the opportunity of his life to stand up against undisputed Communist oppression, he, by contrast with Havel, “devoted his talents to ensuring its continued viability”. Indeed he then prospered even more on the back of the work of true patriots and true freedom fighters, and he didn’t even participate in the early years post-liberation.

    He has lost any credibility or right to preach to us or anyone. He has had a comfortable life under the communists and an even more prosperous time under a free Czech Republic neither of which he earned. If he went quietly into the sunset of his life no one would be saying anything about his past or really begrudge him his good fortune. But if he wants to play this disreputable role in spreading ideological garbage (& no doubt earning good fees) then he cannot hide from a candid examination of his past.

    But what is the point? Your mind is closed. You have convinced yourself of the exact opposite of the reality.

  16. AR

    Hannah Arendt picked the type, not monsters but grovelling Jobsworth, the types who ensured that the death trains ran to schedule, who kept their heads down except when twitching their curtains.
    As GR muses – what does an economist who knows how many potatoes make three do working for a communist government, apart from learn the jargon about enemies of the people, now spouted at the service of his new masters, the rabid Right.

  17. James Hastings

    Rundle – you attack Klaus for making a scientific argument for which he is not qualified. He isn’t, but he’s not arguing that he knows more about climate science than climate scientists, he’s simply challenging the assertion by climate change believers that 90-95% of all scientists agree with the view that climate change is happening, is primarily man-made, and is going to rain death and destruction down on humanity. I’ve heard that bandied about a lot by those who are believers and I’d love to know where that statistic comes from, because it sounds suspiciously like the advertising refrain 9 out of 10 experts say that Colgate toothpaste is the best… message brought to you by Colgate. Somebody point out to me an independent survey of scientists done that verifies this.

    But lets assume that you and every other climate change believer is right – 9 out of 10 scientists agree with the assertion that that climate change is happening, is primarily man-made, and is going to rain death and destruction down on humanity. So what? Science is not, and has never been, about consensus, its about evidence. That’s what separates Science from Politics. Politics is about forming consensus, Science is about the individual challenging the prevailing view and proving it wrong with evidence. Can the majority of eminent professors and climate scientists be stone cold wrong? Yes they can. A quick flashback through the history of Science shows that those scientific theories often accepted as truth by 90-95% experts for centuries ended up being wrong. Miasma theory, flat earth theory, the infinite universe theory, to name just a few, were all supported by the majority of experts at the time, and all were proven wrong.

    Its interesting to me that supporters of global warming always talk about the numbers of scientists that support the cause rather than the actual evidence involved. No one uses the same logic with evolution. Evolution is real because the vast majority of evidence supports it, not because most scientists do.

    I don’t care that Lord Monckton is a bug eyed pommy git, and Vaclav Klaus a former communist stooge. Those are all personal, political attacks, which may or may not be true. Whether or not they are doesn’t have any bearing on the scientific answers to the questions that we have about human influence on the environment.

  18. Michael Hughes

    I accidentally bought a copy of the Australian Spectator. About two pages in I felt like that time I went into a bookshop about military stuff, only to discover it had a wall of Nazi tat lovingly displayed in a prominent position. In that it purported to be objective but then seemed to be filled with full page ads of ‘roll up, roll up, the climate change denialists are coming to town. See them twist and turn. See them use certainty and passion in their belief even when it’s not in their field and that their suppositions when exposed to peer review roundly mocked.

    Also does anyone else find Minchin’s recent castigation of Malcolm Turnbull for speaking outside portfolio hilariously hypocritical considering the black anting of Turnbull on the environment when Turnbull was leader and thus Minchen effectively turfed Turney as a result.

    PS ‘the sure sign of a trusty’ = gold.

  19. Mark M

    @James

    But lets assume that you and every other climate change believer is right – 9 out of 10 scientists agree with the assertion that that climate change is happening, is primarily man-made, and is going to rain death and destruction down on humanity. So what? Science is not, and has never been, about consensus, its about evidence.

    1. That’s not an assumption. That is fact.
    2. The 9 out of 10 scientists have NOT reached a consensus in the way you are thinking. They have reached the conclusion that AGW is real independently based on the EVIDENCE. Their findings and theories have been peer-reviewd and published.

    And…yes… “They” do talk about the evidence. You’re not listening

    AND. There is a scientific consensus on evolution too, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE

    Are you getting it yet?

  20. LisaCrago

    Obviously my comments in Cricky have gained some attention.
    I come here to comment on the articles.
    I am well entitled to do so and certainly entitled to voice my opinion on what is written.

    I do not make comments on the pieces written in Cricky to incite nasty rants from those without the ability to add to the argument or debate.

    The ‘US’ and ‘Them’ arrogance of many enviromental fundamentalists who are 110% convinced that they are right, we are all doomed, really does nothing for me. AGW is a scientific theory, not realised nor yet proven and debate on this issue is very important and should not be closed down by the ‘Believers’.

    There are A LOT of people sitting inbettween the ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’ thinking they are all going mad.

    I refuse to believe that Cricky has turned into a total lefty whinge rag; that is not how it began. I almost long for the poison pen of Hillary Bray.
    Where has the balance gone.

    Oh and michael r james; to say that someone you disagree with does not have an argument, just chosen facts, really that did give me smile and saved me having to read your comment. Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.

  21. Mark M

    @lisacrago

    You seem to think that a scientific theory is established by group of people sitting down and discussing the issues, perhaps reaching some consensus. You couldn’t be further from the truth.

    This NOT the case. You cannot change a fact through debate. Evolution does not cease to exist as a scientific theory because a group of individuals decide they don’t believe it anymore.

    I do not believe in AGW like I believe that Collingwood will win the flag this year. I believe in AGW like i KNOW that Collingwood won the flag last year. Do you see the difference there?

    Actually it doesn’t matter what I believe when it comes to science. You simply have to follow the evidence and there is overwhelming evidence in AGW.

    By the way, scientific theories and not ideological, not left or right wing, etc. It is just the truth, the facts, the evidence.

    I strongly urge you to take the time to try and understand the science and stop wasting your time with ideological and political debate on this issue.

  22. LisaCrago

    Thank you for your interesting beliefanalogy Mark
    However
    This piece by Guy Rundle (who I enjoy reading even when I often disagree with what he writes) is all about The Right, The Left and the politics of someone who is vocal in the debate. It is not an article on the science of weather.

    It is currently a moot point to say that this debate on AGW/Climate Change/CArbon Tax/ ETS is not political or that people are wasting time writinnng talking and getting involved in said debate. Money is involved, so it is naturally very political, involves governments and goes way beyond scientific modeling into the realmm of policy.

    btw never assume what people you do not know on the internet know. I understand the science may have even studied this exact issue at university and I am well aware there is a lot of scientific evidence against as well as for AGW.

  23. Mark M

    @Lisa

    AGW is a scientific theory, not realised nor yet proven

    No, It is both realised and proven

    Sorry

  24. James Hastings

    @ Mark M

    Really, its a fact that 90%+ of climate scientists think Global Warming is real and is dangerous to humanity? Please direct me to an independent survey that shows this. I’ve been looking for one, but I can’t find anything. Since you know this is a fact I’m sure you can help.

    You write…

    “You cannot change a fact through debate. Evolution does not cease to exist as a scientific theory because a group of individuals decide they don’t believe it anymore”

    So you agree with my statement in a previous post that consensus doesn’t matter in science. Great. Lets proceed then to a discussion of the scientific evidence.

    The evidence that I’ve heard for the proposition “Global Warming is man made and a serious threat” goes like this. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, people are making lots of carbon dioxide through industrial processes, therefore we must be causing catastrophic global warming. This would be convincing if climate had never changed through out the history of the world. And yet it has changed often and dramatically, from ice ages that caused the Bering strait to become a land bridge, to warm periods that allowed agriculture to be successful on Greenland. Given all of this happened before we humans started pumping out any serious quantities of Carbon Dioxide means there was some other process at work causing these huge fluctuations in Climate. What is the evidence that “9 out of 10” scientists have that shows this mechanism is not responsible for the warming we are currently experiencing. I’ve been looking for it, but maybe I’m not looking hard enough. Please enlighten me.

  25. Mark M

    @James Hastings

    Are you really serious about the evidence? In that case, I suggest you read the IPCC reports. They are freely available and written by the best scientists in the field.

  26. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JAMES HASTINGS — Posted Saturday, 30 July 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Where do you get off saying “…………. This would be convincing if climate had never changed through out the history of the world…………..”
    Do you realize what a huge statement this is.
    If you think you do then explain
    1. Why would it be convincing if the worlds climate had never changed in all the world’s history?
    OR (now remember its your ‘if’ word that brings the trouble)
    2. Even if its true that the world’s climate history is a changing picture would a new factor or danger just not be worth thinking about because in the history of the world the climate has changed dramatically so stuff any new risks, it’s all too hard?

    The planets first climate was a slightly warmer molten state. We know because Science has watched some of the remaining molten pop out through naughty volcanoes and burn people and everything up but hey they still live right on them.
    Dinosaurs pissed of through an unexpected climate change, we know because science says so, your ancestors didn’t leave any notes, Humans, not only climate, has changed in the history of the world.
    You want to be like your ancestors who never worried about carbon induced climate change.
    But others like me want to worry even though I know it won’t affect my life, because we know things and there are future other lives (the species).
    Science actually knows what the climates have been in history and why (even though your ancestors didn’t leave notes).
    Simply,
    Because I know we (man, that’ll do, I won’t tell you I think I am a new species) are making lots more CO2 than in the history of world and to do that we do a lot of other naughty things to the environment (which includes climate) I want us/we/man to cut that down as much as possible because it will be good for the environment and I don’t want to find out what nature thinks of our CO2 manufacturing especially if it turns on some unbelievable horrible consequence just to teach us a lesson especially since we are smart enough now to do it and still have very prosperous economies possibly even better and healthier ones.

    I could have made this very brief by saying ‘who could possible argue against a little RISK MANagement’.

    This idiocy only occurs when greedy men can’t stop thinking about the dollar.
    Don’t tell me it’s not the dollar but you think it will be better for your children to ignore the warnings about our emissions behaviour.

  27. James Hastings

    @Mark M

    You still haven’t pointed out an independent survey of scientists that show 90%+ of them agree that “global warming in primarily man-made and serious threat to humanity”. But that doesn’t matter, because you agree science is about evidence and not consensus.

    I have a few problems with IPCC reports, here are a couple of examples of what I mean. This if from the Fourth IPCC report, FAQ 6.2 Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?

    Quote – first paragraph.
    “If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely unusual in geological terms.”

    Right, so at the moment its not extremely unusual. What is it at the moment then? Extremely usual? Mildly unusual?

    The sentence above the one I just quoted reads
    “Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium”

    Further down in paragraph number 5
    “all published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then. These conclusions are supported by climate modelling as well”

    We have not exceeded temperatures in the medieval warm period. During the MWP the Vikings were able to support a population of 5,000 with farms and livestock. By 1350 their settlements were eliminated due to the receding of that farm land caused by global cooling. This has been proven due to achaelogical research of those Viking settlements. Reports from Greenland in 2006 suggest that agriculture is starting to become more viable for them as things get warmer. But this http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356-2,00.html article states that at the time of the original Viking settlements Eric the Red owned stables that housed up to 100 cattle each. But at the moment they have only 19 total cattle on the entire island.

    The IPCC report is saying that their modelling says that the Earth is warmer now than it was in medieval warm period and we’d all better be really scared. It’s not warmer. Their modelling is wrong. Because their modelling wrong on this verifiable information I don’t care that that same modelling is reporting we’re all going to die by the end of the century.

  28. LisaCrago

    No, it has NOT been proven Mark.
    And no intelligent advocate from the AGW ‘camp’ would say so unless they were believers in the science as promoted by Dr. Emmett “Doc” Brown.

    If in fact AGW and all the forcasted horror that goes with it had in fact been proven to be true (rather than imagined to possibly be true) then my wonderful beachside home would right now be underwater. Yet it is not.

    So, again, No, AGW has NOT been proven.
    The debate is not over.

    Now Mark, while you appear to thinkk that consensess of a grouping of scientists is good enough evidence, those trained in the use of evidnece habve a preference for the ole beyond reasonable doubt.

  29. Mark M

    @Lisa

    AAAHHHHH it is not a debate. Scientists DO NOT debate the evidence.

    And no intelligent advocate from the AGW ‘camp’ would say so

    I give you David Karoly, James Hansen. NASA, US Department of Defence, The Royal Society, CSIRO, BOM….etc…etc…etc.. These are all scientific institutions. Find me one national academy of science that disputes the mainstream science.

    These intelligent people know that this is mainstream science. And furthermore, they know that it is not a debate. This is NOT a court of law, there is no reasonable doubt. Just evidence.

    The fact that you think No, AGW has NOT been proven only demonstrates the fact that you are not up to date with the research in this scientific field. I suspect you are not a scientists… Am I mistaken. This science is 150 years old FFS.

    I don’t think you have grasped the scale of the problem. Please take the time to read the IPCC reports.

  30. LisaCrago

    Yes it is very much a debate dear and you do very little to advance your AGW cause by yelling SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE to close it down.
    But then you deny that even politics is involved.
    Gee it must be hard work reading the thousands of pages of IPCC reports, no wonder you appear to suffer from tunnel vision.

    interesting piece in the Oz today from those who do what science is supposed to do in regards to public policy, ask lots of questions.

    “We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.”

  31. Mark M

    @Lisa

    Please don’t stoop to patronisation. I am scientist. I know and understand science. The science is very clear, as is the evidence. Politics may be involved, but it does not affect thermodynamics, the laws of physics. It does not affect the temperature, or the melting of the ice caps. I am not yelling.

    There is no debate about the science, only what to do about the results it reveals.

    Don’t get confused here. I am not debating the approach we need to take to alleviate AGW is politicised and ideological.

    Science does not do anything WRT public policy. It presents the evidence, then politicians and the public debate over what to do about it.

    Yes. I have read the IPCC. Illuminating. I suggest you do the same.

    I take it you have never submitted work for peer-review. Very humbling process. God forbid you make a mistake.

  32. granorlewis

    Mark M lets himself down seriously by reverting constantly to the long-discredited publications of the IPCC. And his command of the English language is not too flash either, So one has to ask about his credibility as he protests that “I am scientist.” Repeating constantly that “the science is clear” does not make it so, and never will.

    And as for accusing Lisa of patronisation – well…..!

    In terms of moderating the quality of the debate, James and Lisa win hands down.

  33. Mark M

    @Gran

    One has to seriously question a debate when a debater reverts to ad hominem attacks to make a point. The logic of as hominem attacks goes “If there is a grammatical error in a comment, anything that the commenter says is wrong”.

    When do we get to Godwin’s law eh Gran? Ask Monckton I guess.

    I actually don’t even have to state that the science is clear for the science to be clear Gran do I? You haven’t answered my question about ideology have you.

  34. Mark M

    @Lisa. AGW is not my cause, or even a cause at all. It is a scientific theory proven by multiple lines of evidence. How is that a cause?

  35. Mark M

    @James Hansen

    We have not exceeded temperatures in the medieval warm period

    Yes we have. MWP was confined Europe only, globally the planet was cooler. That argument is discredited – we are way beyond that now James surely.

  36. LisaCrago

    Here Here granorlewis 🙂

    So it seems clear that Mark has very little political nous combined with being “a scientist” It seems most scientists are only interested in politics when they have their hands out for the big fashionable funding grab.

    I wonder if Mark is defending his own fleecing of the public purse? If a real “Scientist” I wonder if he also cashed in as all these other accademics have.

    http://sciencespeak.com/ClimateFunding.pdf

  37. granorlewis

    James is still winning the debate.

    It’s not about ideology Mark M – it’s about listening, reading and learning, and I learn little from your writings.

  38. James Hastings

    @Harvey Tarvydas

    It is a huge thing to assert that the current warming going on is due to human causes when there is another mechanism(s) that has caused the same thing to occur before modern industrialisation.

    Lets use an analogy of the tide which, like climate-change, is also a cyclical process that occurs all the time due to natural cause. If someone or some group of people turn around and say that the next time the tide comes in, its going to keep coming in further and further until all the land in the world is covered and its all because of something that we humans are doing , then those people better have some damn convincing evidence to back that up. Likewise for AGW.

    You are quiet correct in saying that sudden and extreme changes in climate can cause widespread havoc on life on earth. However, in the case of the dinosaurs, we know what wiped them out – it was and Asteroid. Its also suspected that an even bigger Asteroid caused the even worse Permian-Triassic extinction period. So may I suggest that we spend money on looking for Asteroids, and solutions on how to get rid of one on a collision course with us, instead of wasting it on trying to stop a normal variation in Earth’s climate.

    Just one other thing, you said in your post
    “I think I am a new species”

    Now that is a HUGE thing to say.

  39. James Hastings

    @ Mark M

    Neither you or anyone else for that matter has been able to point to an independent survey of scientists that shows that 90%+ support the statement ‘Global Warming is primarily man made, and its a serious threat to our way of life’. Given that you and everyone else has had 2 days to respond with something, I feel safe in saying there is no independent survey of scientists that shows 90%+ scientists support that conclusion.

    But, again, it doesn’t matter because you agreed with me… science is not about consensus its about evidence. I’ll emphasize this point… it doesn’t matter how many scientists think something is the case what matters is the evidence. The IPCC reports which you rely upon as “evidence” contain statements as vague as

    “The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then”

    The evidence they’re using can’t be that great if the best they can say is that we may have exceeded medieval warming period. And besides that there are scientists out there who disagree with many of the assumptions and processes used by the IPCC reports.

  40. James Hastings

    I know that many of you feel strongly about Global Warming and the potential you believe it has to threaten our survival as a species. I appreciate that it no doubt stems for a desire to do good. But a desire to do good is not enough.

    I’ve been listening to the debate for a while and I can’t help but notice a common theme in arguments of those who think AGW is real. You guys talk about how the evidence is overwhelming, but you don’t talk about the evidence in your arguments, instead you just make personal attacks on people who are contrary to that opinion (some of it justified… most of it not) branding them idiots, or corrupt. Yet as soon as one takes a look at the ‘evidence’ being sited all of a sudden it looks a lot more vague and nebulous.

    Science is about evidence, not personalities. Smoking still causes cancer despite Hitler thinking that was so. So talk about the evidence and not the personalities.

    Remember, you guys are asking a lot from the world. You want us to stop using fossil fuels very quickly. For 1st world countries that’s going to mean taking abig hit to our living standards because renewable energy is still far more expensive than fossil fuels. For 3rd world countries like India and China it means hundreds of millions people staying in abject poverty. I’m sure if you were in place of a slum dweller in India or the peasant in China you’d want us to be damn sure that we’re right about this end of the world scenario that’s been conjured up, before we throw the economic prosperity of the world down the toliet.

  41. Mark M

    @James

    You guys talk about how the evidence is overwhelming It is. Sorry.

    You seem like a reasonable chap but you are not going to find the evidence in the comments section of crikey. I suggest you read “Merchants of doubt” or “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Take a look at skepticalscience.com

    It’s all there for you.

    Your question about the 90+ consensus is not relevant. Find a single peer-reviewed article that disproves AGW. Loot at Nature magazine, Scientific American, etc. You won’t find one.

    Oh – and I have been waiting for Hitler to make an entrance. Bingo.

  42. Mark M

    @Gran.

    I didn’t make the point about ideology… you did.

  43. Malcolm Street

    Lisacrago:

    interesting piece in the Oz today from those who do what science is supposed to do in regards to public policy, ask lots of questions.

    “We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.”

    So who is qualified to do the auditing? Surely that’s already been done at the peer review study. Are they seriously saying we can’t even trust the CSIRO to provide scientific advice? Or do they mean “due diligence” by the likes of Pilmer, Carter and Alan Jones?

    Shows how off the planet the Oz has become.

  44. LisaCrago

    Malcolm Street if you genuinlywishto know more may I recommend that you read the entire article then if you wish to understand it.
    I won’t post a link to a newspaper in Crikey but it is in the Climate section of National Affairs in the Oz and written by Joanne Nova titled ‘Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial ‘. You might not “like” her position but if we only read work of people we like and agree with we would not learn very much.

    James Hastings I sincerely like the way you argue points. I agree that advocates of AGW really are mostly motivated by wanting to do the right thing. However it is becoming clearer as the international debate progresses that they are being misdirected.
    What is quite disingenuous is the slanderous way anyone who questions the supposed consensus science is treated by these apparently well meaning people.

    It should not matter what country they grew up in or their personal situation but the arguments, questions and facts that are raised. Shooting the messenger, as I believe Guy has done in this piece, does not silence the message.

  45. AR

    The OO’s Sheridan never disappoints (those who expect grovelling obeisance to rightist ratbaggery) and his paean to Klaus as “a hero in the struggle against Communism” in the opening sentence is another winner/loser in the irrational mendacity contest, were there such an bathetic contest, beyond Mudorc’s minions that is.
    Perhaps, like the Caterwauling Catamite, he has confused his Vaclav’s, as Jones did in his intro. last week on 2GB, even using some of the events from Havel’s life until someone (in his headphones) had the balls to correct HMV. Brave lad.

  46. mattsui

    And so we come back at last to Mr. Rundle’s article.
    @Lisa; Claims that the peer reviewed and published work of any scientist is wrong, without providing any evidence to support those claims, is a personal attack. Not only on the scientists directlt involved with the reasearch deniers so scornfully dismiss. But also by association, all those involved with the review process and the respected journals that publish their work.
    Claims that environmentalists are involved in some sort of communist conspiracy are a personal attack on anybody who has ever been associated with a Green political movement. Worse in this case because the man who accuses us was himself apparently a member of a communist conspiracy.
    Rundle dosen’t so much shoot this messenger as point out the obvious conflict between his current message and his personal history.
    Personal attacks come and go, no-one has even attempted to refute Rundle’s claims about V. Klaus.

  47. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JAMES HASTINGS – Posted Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 1:56 pm
    Thank you for your response but your analogy doesn’t go anywhere for me, except it might go straight to Lisa.
    You are raising a new scenario, that Asteroids fell on dinosaurs heads and killed them and that human’s should stop producing so many Asteroids so unthinkingly so that others (us) don’t get killed.

    Before I get serious again you have to be able to tell humour from edict, however I am fabulously huge where it counts as you say.

    You are right this is exactly what we are trying to avoid ………” You are quiet correct in saying that sudden and extreme changes in climate can cause widespread havoc on life on earth…….”
    The biggest ever, massive Asteroid coming is called CO2.

  48. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JAMES HASTINGS – Posted Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 1:56 pm
    I might be a horse, my nickname at school was ‘Horsey’.

  49. Mark M

    @Lisa

    So it seems clear that Mark has very little political nous combined with being “a scientist” It seems most scientists are only interested in politics when they have their hands out for the big fashionable funding grab.

    Oh dear. Whatever happened to the “No personal attacks in arguments”?

    I wonder if Mark is defending his own fleecing of the public purse? If a real “Scientist” I wonder if he also cashed in as all these other accademics have.

    Actually I am a “real” scientist and I work in private enterprise. I am not an academic. There you go again with the personal attacks. I do what I do because I actually care about finding answers and finding the truth.

    I have not discussed politics, nor ideology, only science Lisa. When one studies science, one is not taught that theories only apply in the correct ideological environment. It is not the case that AGW only applies under a socialist government (hello the UK…) Nor is it the case that evolution only works during business hours, or if there is appropriate funding.

    I first learned about AGW in the 80s at University, when learning about external forcings, in particular, radiative forcings. It may come as a huge surprise to you that we did not include variables for “socialist agenda” and “funding”. This was simply data, combined with mathematics, evidence, etc All very impersonal I’m afraid. Actually, AGW is very easy to prove. It does seem, however, very hard to convince people that we should discontinue the deforestation and burning of fossil fields which is… well.. a shame. It will be a bumpy ride, particularly when the feedback effects take hold.

    I wonder though lisa. Do you ever worry about your own level of consumption? Do you just leave your rubbish out on the street for someone else to clean up. If so, would you expect private enterprise to be held to the same standards?

  50. LisaCrago

    mattsui
    Posted Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    fyi it was others questions and dishonest claims about my comments that has caused me to waste almost one hour of my time in answer to AGW fanatics here.

    I have done no such thing what so ever. I have simply asked questions. You are being dishonest!

    herein lies the sad and sorry issue of those like mattsui/mark in that they are unable to be objective and question so really are True Believers.
    Public policy based on the lobby work of True Believers is dangerous ground to tread.

    No have if suggested “environmentalists are involved in some sort of communist conspiracy ” I have a deep personal knowledge of both movements and see the CPA in a very different light to The Greens. At least the CPA know what they stand for. I have worked with both parties on a prof level not a plem hack member. It is a fact that ex CPA and SP memebers have flocked to join The Greens so not such a long bow to draw for those who believe in conspiracy, I am not big on kooky claims myself.

    I would not bother to refute something that I see as totally unimportant to the broader debate.

    And Mark pointing out your lack of political nouse is pointing out the bleeding obvious and is NOT a personal attack, it is a direct observation from your comments. You are on a comments page for a story that is very centred on someones politics;The Left and The Right. If you dont want to be drawn into any form of political debate then stick to the science pages.

  51. Mark M

    fanatic: a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.

    LOL My comments have not been political. I have no interest in the politics here. I only want to understand the science and its implications,. My responses was directed purely at the denial of the mainstream AGW theory. In particular – your comment:

    AGW is a scientific theory, not realised nor yet proven and debate on this issue is very important and should not be closed down by the ‘Believers’.

    It is both realised and proven. This is not a belief in the traditional (ie religious/ideology…) sense of the word. I know AGW is true and, like it not, any objective reading of the data will reach that conclusion. If you chose not to accept the evidence then you are either experiencing some kind of cognitive dissonance or you just don’t understand it. There is no ideology in data or in mathematics… which is one of the reasons I like science so much. The human/subjective element is irrelevant. The science either stands up, or it doesn’t.

  52. drsmithy

    Politics is about forming consensus, Science is about the individual challenging the prevailing view and proving it wrong with evidence.

    No.

    Science is about creating theories to explain observed evidence. It’s got nothing to do with “challenging the prevailing view and proving it wrong”. No-one disagree that things fall to the ground, yet the theory of gravity was still created to explain (some of) the details about how gravity works.

    Can the majority of eminent professors and climate scientists be stone cold wrong? Yes they can. A quick flashback through the history of Science shows that those scientific theories often accepted as truth by 90-95% experts for centuries ended up being wrong. Miasma theory, flat earth theory, the infinite universe theory, to name just a few, were all supported by the majority of experts at the time, and all were proven wrong.

    Yes. By hypotheses and theories that better fit the evidence.

    What hypotheses and theories that better fit the evidence we are observing ?

    Its interesting to me that supporters of global warming always talk about the numbers of scientists that support the cause rather than the actual evidence involved. No one uses the same logic with evolution. Evolution is real because the vast majority of evidence supports it, not because most scientists do.

    It’s interesting to me you bring this up, because the tactics employed by denialists are identical to the tactics employed by Creationists.

    AGW is a scientific theory, not realised nor yet proven and debate on this issue is very important and should not be closed down by the ‘Believers’.

    *Every* single aspect of science is “a scientific theory”. Nothing is ever proven in science, though generally by the time something is called a theory by actual scientists, it’s as close to “proven” as possible.

    The word “Theory” in science has a specific meaning. It is not the same as the colloquial usage of the word, which is more similar to “hypothesis” in scientific literature.

  53. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Just for the record, ‘cause I think it’s important. Otherwise it’s clearly a waste of time as you’re preaching not debating anything.

    @JAMES HASTINGS — Posted Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 3:11 p
    You’re preaching not debating so it’s a waste of time.

    You’re promoting CO2 emissions and increasing emissions without consequences if it means an extra buck ‘cause nobody can prove it matters a dam (here you are wrong, but it doesn’t suit).

    You have no respect for the environment ‘cause even kids at kindy will tell you that you just can’t treat the environment like that. There will be a consequence.
    That’s the level of your science though, they (kindy kids) will respond to your preaching to be kind but they’ll know better.

    Then you reveal you know even less about economics even though I gave you a simple lesson in it a little earlier.

    “…………………….I know that many of you feel strongly about Global Warming and the potential you believe it has to threaten our survival as a species. I appreciate that it no doubt stems for a desire to do good (thanks preacher). But a desire to do good is not enough (preacher authority now).
    (now how mean can you be) Remember, you guys are asking a lot from the world. You want us to stop using fossil fuels (NO!) very quickly. For 1st world countries that’s going to mean taking a big hit to our living standards because renewable energy is still far more expensive than fossil fuels. For 3rd world countries like India and China it means hundreds of millions people staying in abject poverty. I’m sure if you were in place of a slum dweller in India or the peasant in China you’d want us to be damn sure that we’re right about this end of the world scenario that’s been conjured up, before we throw the economic prosperity of the world down the toliet……….”

    If I and China was to guarantee that ‘curbing emissions’ is big business and the new big buck $ as well as good health, all for the future and China is racing ahead in carbon abatement technologies and emissions reduction dragging hundreds of millions out of poverty in the process as will India and eventually even you when you realize you caught the wrong train.
    The Poms have got it and following China and Germany furiously.
    The Germans are the most advanced. In 1990 having set a 40% reduction of emissions by 2020 and are now reeling it in as the best economy on the planet with the best wages and no unemployment and this year have achieved ¾ of their reduction goal with 16 years of carbon pricing.
    It’s all scientifically proven with science that kindy kids understand.

    Till then you will remain on that same corner preaching away to no one from that old book with NO truths left in it. Loose everything preacher, who cares, you don’t. After kindy you could study science and know and feel what its like. God bless you. Preaching may become an art form, there’s hope.

  54. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JAMES HASTINGS — Posted Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 3:11 pm
    My urge to help fellow man, even preachers.
    The quality of your preaching is very related to your teacher.
    Without even putting deserving people down you have to intellectually consider the following for your own sake.

    “Ever since 1989, Vaclev Klaus has been loudly proclaiming his fervent opposition to communism. Mysteriously, those who were anti-communists before 1989 (eg Vaclev Havel, who can claim rather more credit than VK for “subsequent development of a liberal, prosperous and western-oriented Czech state”) have no memory of his fervent opposition surfacing before 1989, while he was in his cushy communist-state-university chair of economics. In fact, he was apparently working for the secret police.
    But surely this was just a front for his fervent and not at all lucrative crusade against -isms, like communism, environmentalism, and non-corrupt -government-ism. After all, he is a distinguished statesman, not a venal thief.”
    (JAMESH)

  55. Dogs breakfast

    This debate has just depressed the hell out of me. Just when you think people couldn’t be less informed, here they come.

    But it’s the wilfully misinformed that are the problem, and unfortunately facts do not enter the debate.

    To simplify a little, if this was a 50/50 call on whether climate change is man-made or not, then it would be a fool who says ‘let’s forget about it and wait until the science is 100% sure’.

    Of course, science is never 100% sure of anything, nor can it ever be.

    In any case, it isn’t a 50/50 call, it really is closer to 95% (sorry,no links, do your own homework).

    And the actions required to meet the challenge of climate change do not involve bringing down national governments and giving over all power to a bunch of greenies. For god’s sake, how long is that bow drawn? Communism is not the natural outcome of the climate change debate. Global co-operation is necessary, but that cat is already out of the bag.

    The worst we will have to do is pay about $5 a week in carbon taxes, it hardly falls into the realms of communist revolutionary takeover. Where were all you loonies when the GST was being brought in.

    For pathetic, deluded, myopic, selfish, crazy-conspiratorialist thinking, that is just the ants pants. As a contributor points out: (yes, contributor is a bit of a rich title given the pickings)

    “If we are not careful in this country we will soon be afraid to live as we wish too and are already being told what is good for us and what is not, what we should drive, eat, smoke, drink, the list is bloody endless and about to get worse.”

    This quote just about represents the epitome of self-centred delusion. I’m sure it was followed by:

    And then I said “Pet”, I said “Love”, I said “Pet”.

    Cold shiver.

  56. Mark M

    @Dogs Breakfast

    It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is proving to be to separate the science from the politics. In this “debate” I have been told that I lack political nous as if that is an argument against the existence of AGW. I must rush back to the lab and begin research immediately on the climate’s sensitivity to political ideology.

    The missing variable in radiative forcings… v = voting preference.

  57. James Hastings

    @ Dogs breakfast

    You write
    “it’s the wilfully misinformed that are the problem, and unfortunately facts do not enter the debate”

    My response – this is the fourth time I’ve asked and you all have had plenty of time to respond. Name one independent survey of scientists that shows 90%+ agree that GW is man made and a serious threat. You GW advocates are very strident on the fact that the evidence is out and the science settled. Yet you can’t even provide evidence for the simplest of claims you make – that an overwhelming number of scientists support these dire predictions.

    So what about the IPCC reports that are meant to have all the answers to my questions about the scientific evidence? As I’ve shown in previous posts, by directly quoting from those IPCC reports, not even the scientists who write them are prepared to say with certainty that global temperatures today are higher than what they were in the MWP. And yet we’re meant to take their catastrophic predictions for the future seriously.

    In other words I agree with you ‘Dogs Breakfast’ – not many facts have been entering the debate.

  58. James Hastings

    @ Harvey Tarvydas

    Okay you were joking about saying you’re a different species. My impish nature got the better of me and I pulled you leg. If what you say is true it sounds like what I think might have been your leg could actually have been something else. I will refrain from pulling anymore of your limbs, however gently, in the future.

    Good day to you, sir.

  59. Mark M

    Name one independent survey of scientists that shows 90%+ agree that GW is man made and a serious threat.

    Take your pick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Follow the links and references. Most illuminating

    As I’ve shown in previous posts, by directly quoting from those IPCC reports, not even the scientists who write them are prepared to say with certainty that global temperatures today are higher than what they were in the MWP.

    Now you’re just cherry picking and obfuscating the truth. MWP was Europe only…. cooler globally…

    See here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

  60. granorlewis

    James, your logical and absolutely legitimate input is special to me and I think many others. Thank you.

    Dr Harvey has finally reverted to the personae depicted of him on Google, and can rightly be ignored.

  61. Mark M

    Oh Gran. Please tell me you and James are the same person. That would make my day.

  62. granorlewis

    Not much scientific analysis to that statement.

  63. Mark M

    I was hoping my input was special to you too Gran

  64. granorlewis

    Sorry- your writings have been unconvincing, verging on c–p.

  65. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @GRANORLEWIS — Posted Monday, 1 August 2011 at 9:42 pm
    You don’t know me, poor fool, and you will be sorry, poor thing.
    You don’t know Google.
    Those bits you’re excited about are a Google masturbatory experiment when they became aware that the sweetest prettiest naked girls did nothing for you.

    But back to the subject you raise, my sophisticated Google profile which depends on the ‘dopey’ media ability to judge things of ’high’ science (remind you of anything) but they damage you as you believe they damage me (are you able to follow) but apart from the current experiment involving you they serve me by exposing the criminally ugly Queensland and WA Medical Boards.
    You have to be worldly aware and a bit sophisticated to read that into the articles which so excited you.

    But we are all dying (medical fact, love) slowly or quickly – your choice mostly and Google has induced you to poke your tongue at the only medical specialist scientist in the world who can reverse that process, feeling well.
    Some of the worlds most wealthy and famous people have and are exuberantly proving this talent of mine for me (can’t do it in that country possessed with evil medico’s and pathetically dumb media, Australia)
    You’re actually a beneficiary of another of my achievements.
    I gave the world the bird flu vaccine, notice that on Google (ooohhh they’re good). Well a very special part of the world of science knows about that achievement (I am going to protect them from you of course) and I care not for any other publicity. So go off and have a stroking secession (fear not, no medical meaning in that).
    This will be on Google soon, please promise to read it again.

  66. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @GRANORLEWIS — Posted Monday, 1 August 2011 at 9:42 pm
    Don’t forget to tell everyone you discovered something ‘huge’ about me, friends now, you promise to change, good man (I think).

  67. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JAMESH — Posted Monday, 1 August 2011 at 4:14 pm
    Thanks for tuning up James, I am leaving now cos I am having too much fun here and as the subject is really serious its a bit unfair.

  68. granorlewis

    Re Dr Harvey – Oops!! Struck a raw nerve obviously. Sorry fellow-posters.

  69. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @GRANORLEWIS — Posted Tuesday, 2 August 2011 at 8:50 am
    You give yourself away, ‘science thinking’ just doesn’t work in your head.
    “Struck a raw nerve obviously”? No evidence for this but rather the evidence is that I don’t have raw nerves anywhere. Your degree of ineptness in evidence assessment provides its own measurement tool in the word “obviously”.
    It’s all understandable as a disguised self-defence statement. It has the psychological feel of one.

  70. James Hastings

    @Mark M

    I asked to be shown at least 1 independent survey of scientists that shows 90%+ agree ‘Global Warming is man made and a dangerous threat”. There are 6 surveys mentioned in your wiki-link that have been done since 2003.

    Number one – 2010

    Three graduates students “reviewed publication and citation data” to come to the conclusion 97% of scientists supports AGW. Question – to find out someone’s opinion wouldn’t it just be easier to ask them questions rather than review their footnotes. It seems rather bizarre that someone would take the time to collate all that ‘citation data’ when they could just, you know, pick up the phone or write an email.
    Furthermore these ‘surveyors’ only chose scientists who participated in the IPCC or signed public statements on the state of science. That these people chose which scientists participated in their survey by anything other than randomness disqualifies this as ‘independent’. Given that they didn’t ask their subjects any questions I don’t see how this even qualifies as a survey.

    1 down 5 to go.

    Number two – 2009

    Conducted by Professor Peter Doran Professor Earth and Environmental Sciences and his assistant. A survey done by just one man and his assistant = not independent. We don’t know what his biases are.
    To their credit they did at least bother to ask people some questions. But all they asked was “has the worlds’ temperatures risen since 1800” (even I agree with that) which is meaningless. Remember we’re trying to show the AGW is unusual compared to natural variance in the climate. Proving that the average temperature of the world has risen in the last 200 years is not unusual. The second question they asked was “Do you think human activity is a significant
    contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”. Huh? I’d be interested in knowing the definition of a “significant contributing factor”, because the study doesn’t say. Is it 5%, 25% or 95%?

    2 down 4 to go

    Number 3 – 2008

    Conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. Here is a quote from Mr. Von Storch “Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”
    Not independent. Next

    Number 4 – 2007

    Conducted by Harris Interactive, we get questions as vague as “84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger”. But how many of those 84% think it poses a moderate danger and how many think it poses a great danger? I asked for an independent survey that shows 90%+ think AGW is a dangerous threat. This one doesn’t do it. Such a pity because this is the one independent survey on the list. Funny that.

    Number 5 – 2004

    Conducted by Naomi Oreskes who wrote Merchants of Doubt – an AGW proponent if ever there was one. Not independent.
    Like the first mob she doesn’t even bother to ask people their opinions she came to her “conclusions” that there is a consensus by analyzing 928 abstracts published between 1993 and 2003.

    Number 6 – 2003

    Conducted by Von Storch again. Not independent.

    That’s it. Four of the six surveys were conducted by outright AGW proponents, one whoose views are unknown. The only independent one could only get 84% of scientists to agree to a statement as vague as “global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger” with no break down of how many thinks its moderate and how many think its dangerous.

    The more I look at the ‘evidence’ the more underwhelmed I become.

    I repeat my challenge. Show me at least 1 independent survey of scientists that shows 90%+ agree ‘Global Warming is man made and a dangerous threat”

  71. granorlewis

    Thanks again James. More valid, reasoned response.

    Can’t wait for some more nonsense from you- know-who.

  72. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas (special invented nonsense for idiots (TM))

    For the two self-declared geniuses that are having trouble understanding science (God help them with Einstein’s ‘general relativity’ theory – they would insist on digging Albert up to ask him why he didn’t prove it – who does he think he is with a bloody theory – are we supposed to take all that crap seriously), well kids first you have to know what it is so till then here is a bit of nonsense for you guys………………..
    A message to the ‘Australian’ (take that either way) – school kid science that the big time boys that would rule our world, tell us what we will do, what we will like , accept etc and want proven, proven, proven when their kids can show them the proof (let go of it old man (dad), it doesn’t want to stand up……….
    The message, the science that their kids know……..
    We are making too much (more than ever) CO2 and it can’t escape to space, its got nowhere to go, its accumulating (another scientific term that needs proving, proving), it must change our world dad, you know, after you’ve gone and scientist have some frightening ideas of what those changes are likely to be…………….. no one else has a single idea except to shrug their stupid shoulders and say “dun know son, but those fagot scientists are wrong that I do know” but dad, …………..
    Just cut back as much as you can you dag called dad.
    The environmental principle is simple ? when you know you are polluting cut back at least if you can’t stop or the place will be a mess when you’ve gone.
    I don’t want to bury you with your hand still on it dad.
    Now that’s ‘real’ science. Disprove that you pricks.
    My ‘father’s day’ peice for those special fathers.

  73. Mark M

    I repeat my challenge. Show me at least 1 independent survey of scientists that shows 90%+ agree ‘Global Warming is man made and a dangerous threat”

    LOL. All you have done is dismiss ALL of them out of hand based on your assumptions that the authors are biased. For example, you have assumed that Naomi Oreskes didn’t read any of the studies. She “concluded” there was a consensus because she read the report’s findings and found them to conclude AGW was real and happening. Then she counted them and calculated a percentage. That is … what… Grade 3 maths?

    Oh…. and this is my favourite

    “Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” by Von Storch.

    Yes… That’s right. Based on the evidence, it’s impossible not to conclude this. That makes his opinion objective because it is based on a non-subjective input I have no idea what you mean by independent. Perhaps someone that doesn’t think at all.

  74. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @MARK M — Posted Wednesday, 3 August 2011 at 7:20 am
    Don’t bother Mark.
    They don’t know the scientific meaning of terms such as ‘independent’, ‘theory’, ‘objective’ and are mucking about with making anything they want redefine the ordinary meaning of these words this then used to make a nonsense ‘argument’ (they don’t know the meaning of that word either).
    They are trying to affect those who know less than them.
    They are preaching, cheap psychological tricks, like with those words, are used that affects the hopeless.
    They are not talking to scientists, they don’t know how.
    Preaching is easy, you just keep repeating your gospel and pick on a word (from your effort to explain) around which you can cause (ordinary) doubt then claim that doubt (manufactured and dishonest) belongs elsewhere, everywhere.

    Out of shear kindness I tried to fill in some blanks in their ordinary school education but they’re not interested they think they are making sense having no idea what you are on about.

  75. granorlewis

    Talk about preaching/ repeating the gospel Doctor H. You are as guilty as sin. But your preaching, ridicule and repetition does your credibility no good at all.

    Certainly hope you were a better doctor.

  76. Mark M

    @James

    Here’s what I see is the real problem. Acceptance of AGW leads to government regulation. AGW itself is not political of course, but the solution will ultimately be political through mechanisms like a price on carbon, like more government regulation. AAAHHHH BIG GOVERNMENT = COMMUNISM…

    This is exactly the same debate as that brought on by the scientific evidence that lead us to conclude that smoking causes cancer, CFCs are creating a whole in the ozone layer, etc.

    It looks like it comes from proponents of big government, after all NASA, CSIRO are all government agencies, so why wouldn’t they want higher taxes, more regulation. The opponents of the solution to AGW seem to have confused the facts behind AGW with the solution to AGW but the they are NOT the same thing. The climate does not care about politics, it doesn’t care about anything at all actually. It is simply beholden to the laws of physics. And so are we.

    Even the Heartland Institute freely admits that it has won the public and political debate, but it hasn’t won the scientific debate. It cannot, of course, despite the fact that there is an army of scientists attempting to do just that (Hello Ms Nova) All it can do is confuse and obfuscate the issue.

  77. granorlewis

    Wow MarkM – finally a statement I can (nearly) agree with. In fact even Klaus would probably jump on board with that post.

    after all, it is the Government’s proposed solutions that are causing the angst, and no-one has yet successfully argued (in my opinion) that pricing carbon, or trading emissions will make one iota of difference to whatever climate change might or might not be occurring

  78. Mark M

    @Gran

    Business as usual then? Given what we know to be true, that does seem a tad irresponsible don’t you think.

  79. James Hastings

    @ Mark M

    I’m not suggesting Naomi Oreskes didn’t read those studies. My point was collating footnotes is a dodgy/stupid way to find out someone’s opinion. Why not just ask them? Also an assumption built into those studies was the definition of ‘expert’ Both Naomi’s study and the first one judged someone an expert in climate scientist by the amount of work they have published. Quantity of output doesn’t make someone an expert. It just makes them loud.

    So Von Storch thinks he’s right based on the evidence… but then again he would say that wouldn’t he. Professor Richard Lindzen (an AGW dissenter) thinks he’s right based on the evidence too, but that doesn’t make him qualified to do an independant survey of scientists.

    What do I mean by an independent survey? One that’s not conducted by an individual, but by a professional market research organisation, for starters. After all you AGW proponents are outraged by the fact that people who aren’t professional climatologists are daring to disagree with those climatologists, because these climatologists are experts in climatology. Fine. Then climatologists can’t conduct independent surveys of other scientists because they’re not experts in conducting independent surveys. Given that these same climatologists struggle with the basic concept of asking people questions in order to find out their opinions I think this well warranted. Don’t you?

  80. Mark M

    @James

    Well let’s look at what Naomi has to say on the matter

    That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    That’s a lot of papers for no disagreement on the consensus position.

    Personally I believe Lindzen, whilst no doubt a highly respected scientist, has made some egregious errors in his work on climate. It is widely believed that his fear of big government is influencing his objectivity.

  81. James Hastings

    @ Mark M

    You write “That’s a lot of papers for no disagreement on the consensus position”

    Mark we only have HER word that none of those papers disagreed.

    Here’s a sentence in her article that should set off alarm bells. Quote…

    “75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view”.

    Wait a second. How does someone implicitly accept the consensus view? They either do or they don’t. And since the consensus view is “AGW is a serious threat to humanity” you would think that a scientist would mention that rather explicitly in their paper, since their own survival depends on it.

    And I’d like to know what the breakdown of that 75% is between those who explicitly agree and implicitly agree. Is it 50/50? 20/80 95/5?. We don’t know because she doesn’t tell us. Why would someone with a well known pro-AGW stance not tell us. Hmmm

    And what is her definition of “Implicit consent”. Did the scientists who “implicitly consented” actually get asked by her what their opinions were? Nope. Why wouldn’t she want to ask them? Because they might disagree, or she is too lazy. Either way…

    She’s not qualified to do a survey independent or otherwise. She doesn’t ask people their opinions, and she doesn’t explain how she deduced their opinions from their work… just that she did. Sure you did, Naomi.

  82. James Hastings

    @Mark M

    “Personally I believe Lindzen, whilst no doubt a highly respected scientist, has made some egregious errors in his work on climate. It is widely believed that his fear of big government is influencing his objectivity.”

    Your missing the point… Lindzen isn’t claiming that the vast majority of scientists agree with his position. If he did a study, by himself, claiming that, I would be equally scornful.

  83. Mark M

    @James

    Read them yourself 🙂 All publicly available.

    Lindzen isn’t claiming that the vast majority of scientists agree with his position.

    Lindzen knows full well that the majority of climate scientists disagree with his position. Hence the rebutals…

  84. James Hastings

    @ Mark M

    I thank you for your comments, and I respect your tenacity. I think I will take your advice and probe further into these surveys, who does them, and the studies they are based on. I am finding the more I learn about climate change, the science, and the ‘consensus’ behind it, the more objections I have.

    The next time I encounter you on these forums I will advise on my progress.

    Don’t take my criticism of your views harshly.

  85. Mark M

    @ James

    The scientific method is your friend. Where does the evidence lead us? What is the truth about AGW?

    Once we know this, the only real question is what to do about it. Of course, that almost certainly means government regulation, hence the “debate”

    The George C Marshall institute is not your friend.

    Good luck

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/29/rundle-pen-pinching-klaus-a-prized-righter-not-a-freedom-fighter/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.