Climate Science Credibility Shredded

The latest senior scientist to protest the theory of anthropogenic global warming further discredits the so-called 'scientific consensus' argument, writes Senator Cory Bernardi.

"...the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists... It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

The fact that I am not a physicist should be enough to determine that the words above are not mine. Although they clearly express my view that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmism is an industry that has built layer upon layer of falsehoods on a kernel of truth.

That kernel of truth is the fact that the climate is indeed changing, just like it has since the dawn of time. The geological (and other) evidence demonstrates conclusively that the current rate of climate change is entirely within historical norms. 

Despite the trifling matter that the so-called evidence supporting catastrophic AGW has been repeatedly discredited, the warming alarmists continue their theological claim to moral and scientific superiority in the hope it will silence their critics. 

In spite of the public pressure to comply with alarmist climate claims, an increasing number of reputable scientists are no longer able to remain silent in the face of such a corruption of science. 

Among the most recent of them is Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California. He is the author of the opening paragraph which formed part of his resignation letter to the American Physical Society after 67 years of membership.

Given the credentials and status that Professor Lewis holds within the scientific community, his resignation is not an insignificant incident. It comes on top of tens of thousands of scientists, organisations and institutions that have also expressed their concerns about the status and reputation of climate change science.

Quite simply, the concept that there is a consensus on the science is one of many fabrications undertaken by the alarmists that has now been debunked. Having previously  been exposed as misrepresenting evidence, withholding information and operating as a closed shop refusing non-believers admission, their credibility lies in tatters.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), once the ultimate appeal to authority for climate change alarmists to justify their absurdities, has now been exposed as a hollow shell driving a political agenda with little scientific rigour.

The fact that the IPCC is now considering whether to sack controversial president Rajendra Pachauri over alleged misuse of funds and abuse of the scientific process poses a special dilemma.

To remove him from his post for the failings of the IPCC undermines the very credibility of the arguments put forward by their multiple reports under his reign. To leave him there discredits the operations of the organisation entirely. A delightful hobsons choice for the rent-seeking climate alarmist camp.

Which brings me back to the point that thousands of people are making billions of dollars out of a pseudoscientific racket that has conned millions of people around the world. We cannot allow it to continue any longer.

Rather than debate the policy solution governments should be implementing to reduce the non-problem of anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, we should be having an independent inquiry (or a Royal Commission) into the scientific facts attached to climate change alarm.

That way, you won't have to take my word for it (or rely on the nonsense that Julia Gillard or Bob Brown will have you believe). We can test the competing theories and determine which side presents a more conclusive case based on evidence - not green ideology. 

Such a process will be expensive and time consuming, but if the supposed future of the planet doesn't warrant an independent assessment, I don't know what will.

Only when politicians are prepared to examine the science of climate change on its merits, rather than through their own political interests can we hope to reach a conclusion in the best interest of our nation.

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.

Comments

[TerjeP]

1.

I don't agree with the assertion that evidence conclusively shows that current rates of climate change are within historical norms. I think this is a very contestable claim. However I don't agree with the AGW alarmism. However it does represent two opportunities:-

1. We should tax something other than income.
2. We should end the ban on nuclear power.

[Medusa Knows]

2.

Everyone I know believes in the climate and that it changes: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. No-one I know wants a carbon tax, ETS or any other mechanism (with the exception of increased fines for environmental polluters) and I am increasingly annoyed with MSM telling me that the majority of Australians WANT a carbon tax. What BS!

[Vikas Nayak]

3.

While i agree with the principle of no banning nuclear power, i know as a reality Australia will never see it because:

1) The plants are expensive.
2) No government will upgrade our aged power grid to support nuclear power.
3) the upgrading of ports or disposal facilities will just convince people to look at "renewable" energy.

Coal is prominent here, because its cheap...and it will take a lot of spending to get the country nuclear ready.

[Andy's RANT!]

4.

Good Blog, Senator.

I believe we need a Royal Commission in the theory of AGW to determine whether it is better to adapt rather than try and “cool” the planet which is actually quite an absurd thing to try and achieve. What’s next for the alarmists, let’s stop the tide because high tides are bad?

No doubt the so-called science into AGW is stacked, you only have to look at the climategate email scandal to come to that basic conclusion.
The sheer nonsense of creating a new asset class of “carbon” is bewildering to say the least and to think either a Tax on Carbon or Cap & Trade scheme will help solve the AGW problem because a “price signal” is established is the greatest con since the Tulip boom bust from the 1630’s.

How ludicrous is it to create an a new asset class, by government degree, from an invisible, odourless and tasteless gas which without it there would be no living organism on this planet.
Anyone who believes in this AGW trollop should do themselves a favour read this: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous by Michael Crichton http://bit.ly/ksVP7
If you actually accept the proposition of AGW then the logical conclusion of course is that humans are responsible for causing it therefore to reduce or eradicate the “dangers” of AGW the only solution is to have less humans on our planet, right? I mean, if you have a termite problem you get them exterminated don’t you?? Now we don’t hear anyone from the proponents of AGW like Gillard/Brown/Gore etc propose this ultimate “solution” and rightly so, but please don’t laugh at this sinister conclusion; there are many extreme environmentalists who make some of the more radical Islamic radicals look like saints. Below are just a handful of quotes from the lunatic AGW cheer squad.

“No Compromise in the Defence of Mother Earth!”
- Motto – Earth First (earthfirst.org)

***

“...Man is no more important than any other species ... It may well take our extinction to set things straight.”
- Mr. David Foreman, Founder of Earth First! September 1988

***

“I see no solution to our ruination of Earth except for a drastic reduction of the human population.”
- Mr. David Foreman, Earth First! April 30, 1990

***

“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
- Mr. David Foreman, Earth First! 2007

***

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
- Mr. John Daily, Earth First! Journal editor, 2007

***

“We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year old children to Asian brothels.”
- Mr. Carl Amery of the Green Party, April 1983

***

"They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value - to me - than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line - about a billion years ago - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
- Biologist Dr. David Graber (U.S. National Park Service), 22 October 1989

***

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Mr. Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General's office, 1 September 1997

***

‘Ms. Sandra Kanck, from Sustainable Population Australia said that it is critical that the world keeps CO2emissions below 450 ppm or below 2oC warming.’
"Once we go above that we will experience positive feedbacks such as release of methane from the tundra and loss of albedo as ice melts in the Arctic. Yet if we continue with business-as-usual, and that includes continued population growth, we will head for the higher end of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projections of six degrees or more.
That will ensure the end of civilisation as we know it."
- Ms. Sandra Kanck, Sustainable Population Australia, 21 April 2009

American author H L Mencken best sums up the current AGW state of play:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

[Clinton Mead]

5.

What is the climate change denier argument? I really don't get it...

Is it:

(a) Obviously, some magic super hero is grabbing all the carbon dioxide we are emitting into the atmosphere and eating it, and hence it is quite clear that the additional carbon dioxide in the air is from non man-made sources?
(b) The fact that carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation is an untrue scientific conspiracy? (P.S. they've also been lying to us about the surface temperature of Venus).
(c) Some other effect happens which constantly day to day exactly counteracts the warming effect caused by increased carbon dioxide in the air? (maybe another magician)

If you accept that humans burning stuff makes carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, and that that carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation otherwise destined for space back to earth's surface, I can't see how anyone can claim that man made climate change isn't happening.

[TerjeP]

6.

Vikas,

1. Plant cost is hirely dependent on regulatory structure. Nuclear power is notoriously over regulated despite have a track record significantly safer than hydro and massively safer than coal based power.

2. Our grid does not need an upgrade to accommodate nuclear. It may need some augmentation but this is true for any new power plant. Even more so for wind and solar which tend to be remote from demand. Because the fuel requirement is so low for nuclear they can be economically situated close to load. 3. The physical mass of nuclear waste is small and you don't need much space to store it. Burning coal produces loads of nuclear waste and we just let it float over the land and land anywhere. If it's not an issue for coal based nuclear waste it certainly isn't an issue for nuclear based nuclear waste.

[Vikas Nayak]

7.

Errr, TerjeP, i may have a few qualms withthat.

1. Nuclear regulation comes from the UN Security council primarily and has mandates limiting weaponisation and compulsory inspection and a whole array of other forms of regulation. Local saftey regulations pale in comparison to the those coming from the Security Council, hence why every nuclear project is a major nation building venture.

2. Not entirely true, countries with nuclear have spent millions to upgrade their grids on the grounds of security, reducing redundancy and obselesant hardware. No feasibility study has been conducted to determine the cost of upgrading the grid, but everywhere nuclear has touched, the grid has needed to upgraded.

3. The physical mass of radiation isn't in question. The storage facility IS. Even if you're producing 300KG of waste a year (like france is), you're going to spend millions to contain it. The argument isn't that "oh no...nuclear waste", its "where are we going to put it?". Even dumping it somewhere requires land you dont plan on using for 4 billion years and safe transport.

[.]

8.

Really Vikas, the UN stops nuclear being cheap, not our sovereign policy, a lack of economies of scale and so on? So how did the US and France get to use cheap, clean green nuclear power and we don't? Don't we voluntarily follow all of the stupid rules?

You should check out U Sec Corp (USEC). Nuclear power will be cheaper than coal if we let it. Australia is well positioned to take advantage of this.

[TerjeP]

9.

A 1GW generation II nuclear power station requires 1 ton of enriched uranium per annum as fuel. You can carry one ton on the back of a ute. Because the fuel requirement is so low a nuclear power plant does not need to be built close to the fuel source like coal. As such it is much less demanding in terms of transmission infrastructure.

A 1GW generation II nuclear power plant built today would be expected to operate until 2070. By then there would be a stock pile of 60 tons of depleted uranium. In other words not much. And whilst we call this stuff waste it is actually a valuable asset. That 60 tons of depleted uranium could be recycled as fuel for a 1GW generation IV reactor and would keep the thing running for 6000 years before new fuel was needed. At the end of that process there would be about 600kg of waste which would hot for about 300 years. Is 600kg of nuclear waste a lot? Not really. Operate a coal fired power station of 1GW for 6060 years and you'll produce more nuclear waste than that. And unlike the nuclear industry which manages it's nuclear waste the nuclear waste produced when coal is burnt ends up scattered across the landscape completely unmanaged.

[Anton]

10.

Clinton

If Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas it would be so because it ABSORBS infra red radiation, rather than reflect it.

The point of "deniers" is one of significance. Taking both the "greenhouse potential" and relative proportions into account, water vapour absolutely dominates all other gases (including Carbon Dioxide) combined. Compounding this is the large (relatively) latent heat associated with phase change, which is not observed for most other greenhouse gases. It would be more accurate to look exclusively at water vapour when studying global climate.

Atmospheric water, in gas and liquid form can also affect Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This goes some way to explaining the observation that increases in atmospheric Carbon dioxide often lag global warming events.

In summary, it seams ludicrous to incur so much economic and social cost on the basis of an absolutely insignificant component of global climate.

Alternatively, you could just veg out and go with the consensus. "Everybody is doing it"

[Louis Hissink]

11.

Anyone read the front page of the Fin Review today?

NSW is going back into coal mining.

[Louis Hissink]

12.

I should have written the NSW Government (ALP) is

[Richard Norman]

13.

Clinton, the earth has compensating factors that regulate the temperature of the planet.

The fact that man made CO2 is such a low percentage of atmospheric greenhouse gases, plus the fact that atmospheric CO2 rises in response to warming, suggest you are wrong.

How is it that the same warming has been experienced on mars as on earth over the past century?
How do you explain atmospheric temperature is not increasing but the scientists are prepared to falisfy data to make it look like it is? Why are the oceans cooling when the scientists tell us they should be warming?
Do some research and your mind might be opened.

[.]

14.

Very well said Terje.

[Alex]

15.

Well, not a day passes and another contributor to Menzies House spouts the idea that climate change is the biggest fraud the world has ever seen. The thing that bothers me is that every person that posts on Menzies House, even our esteemed Senator, resort to using rare, specific examples, and extreme hyperbole to justify their hypothesis that climate change is not happening.

What troubles me the most is that in order to justify their positions, climate change denialists link their beliefs to their Liberal Party membership, and if you happen to believe in the science of climate change, you are either a socialist leftie, or you subscribe to a vast socialist conspiracy. Indeed, neither is true.

I don't have a problem with climate change denialists wanting to present evidence to justify their beliefs. But when they make such ridiculous claims as Senator Bernardi has that "It comes on top of tens of thousands of scientists, organisations and institutions that have also expressed their concerns about the status and reputation of climate change science." then I think it borders on complete dishonesty. I don't even think that there are "tens of thousands" of scientists involved in examining the science of climate change. This is hyperbole at its most extreme.

The European Union has had an ETS in place since 2005. The EU has member governments that range from the most extreme right-wing, to the socialist left. Yet all participate in the EU's ETS. New Zealand has kicked off its own carbon abatement policy, with a right-wing government in power. California, the world's eighth largest economy has a Republican Governor (none other than el Terminator), and yet, the state is the most proactive in dealing with climate change in the United States.

And yet, Mr Bernardi has drawn on this one person to come to the extreme conclusion that climate change does not exist, and that all these right-wing governments are complete idiots. Indeed, denialists would have you believe that all the scientific advisors that these governments rely are part of a vast international conspiracy, and that we are all being conned. Indeed, Mr Bernardi would have you believe that we need a Royal Commission to find out the truth about climate change. Let me guess, I would imagine that the members of this commission that would be appointed by Mr Bernardi would have a certain persuasion against the science of climate change? Never forget the old adage that when governments commission an inquiry, they already know what the result is going to be.

Even The Economist, a bastion of free enterprise and thought has come to the conclusion that man-made climate change is a certainty. The only real question is to what extent climate change will damage our planet. The editorial it published this year argues that yes there is uncertainty, but it would be foolish not to take action on climate change, because if the most extreme predictions of temperature increases do happen, then it would be a lot cheaper to limit temperature increases now through an ETS or carbon tax, than to wait until it's too late (and when it has a disastrous effect on the world economy).

Finally, I'd like to ask how denialists can reconcile growing sea levels with the belief that climate change does not exist. The (Liberal) West Australian Government has changed its guidelines on where houses will in future be able to be built along the coast due to rising sea levels.

"For new development on a sandy coast, the impact of an increase in vertical sea level rise value from 0.38m to 0.9m will result in an increase to the horizontal setback of 52m, increasing the total setback for the general guide from 100m to 150m."

I find it hard to understand how climate change denialists can reconcile this with how their WA Liberal colleagues are preparing for the effects of climate change.

At the end of the day we have to face up to the fact that Australia is the largest per capita emitter in the world. We're still burning coal to produce most of our electricity! It's a shameful reputation, and one that cannot be denied.

I'm tired of contributing to these arguments because I fully predict that I will be labelled a socialist or a climate change conspirator. But I have to point out that I've always voted Liberal and am very passionate about the party. I just wish it wasn't seen as a crime to be a party member and believe climate change exists.

[Sean]

16.

Alex,

Your contribution here is immensely important - something that people on this board should take into account.

[Dave]

17.

Sean and Alex

1. There are thousands of scientists. http://petitionproject.org/

2. You'll find that, contrary to your opinion they don't tend to believe that "climate change does not exist". They just question whether there is enough evidence to justify taxing everyone and everything or developing an artificial marketplace that will serve the same purpose (effectively a tax). There's no denying that the science isn't settled.

If a doctor offered you medication that hasn't been tested and approved yet, would you take it?

3. You could always write something for Menzies House yourself rather than whingeing about what gets posted here...it's always easy to be an armchair critic.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

18.

If you accept that humans burning stuff makes carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, and that that carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation otherwise destined for space back to earth's surface, I can't see how anyone can claim that man made climate change isn't happening.

Thanks to Clinton for showing what the warmenist perspective really comes down to. At the end of the day, for the carbon reducers, this is it.

Now, Clinton, can you really argue that people who believe that our climate is more complex than this are being naive? It's acknowledged that sometimes complex systems come back to a simple rule. It's acknowledged that often complex systems have a small number of dominant terms.

But to claim this is the dominant factor in our environment at the moment, and that only drastic and amazingly expensive action and reductions in our standard of living in the next decade can stop millions of people from dying, is just being silly.

If you want to do something constructive tell all the Al Gore's and Greens using this as their vehicle to push their political agenda to piss off. Then we can actually look at what's going on.

[.]

19.

"New Zealand has kicked off its own carbon abatement policy"

Yes Alex, and a NZ court found that their climatologists manipulated data under 'Elen Clawke to show 1 deg warming where there was none.

There is a degree of fraud, even if it is not a massive orchestrated conspiracy.

[Graham]

20.

//If a doctor offered you medication that hasn't been tested and approved yet, would you take it?

Medication is approved by specific institutions set up to test them. There is still dissenting opinion amongst elements of the scientific community, but until they present the scientific evidence to prove the original assessment of the medication false it stands, and continues to be a valid treatment.

Your analogy is actually more favourable to the other side of the debate.

[Graham]

21.

And last week a man was convicted of insider trading therefore the whole financial system is invalid.

[.]

22.

Graham, you're plumbing new depths by "disproving" an example of climate science fraud with making up really poor and incongruous analogies - especially when I commented on the extent of the fraud. There is no conspiracy but it is endemic.

There is enough fraud to make the whole exercise completely questionable given it requires coercion.

Please, keep going. You're doing the sceptics a great service by trying to push the idea that the warmenists can lie and it is ok. I'm very happy you're too much of a naif to know better and this will be rejected en masse.

[Graham]

23.

>>Please, keep going. You're doing the sceptics a great service by trying to push the idea that the warmenists can lie and it is ok.

No, you're misrepresenting my position. You have a habit of doing that. What my analogy suggested was that individual cases of fraud cannot necessarily be extrapolated to discredit a broader movement or system. That's a fairly logical position. That doesn't excuse the behaviour of those individuals who fudge the science any more than it does those who exploit insider trading.

In actual fact I agree that the movement suffers from problems inherent in institutions like science and academia, that is a stifling of dissenting opinion and subtle coercion which can lead to bias and complacency. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the initial position is incorrect.

It's a very serious problem, I agree with that, and it should be exposed and condemned, I also agree with that.

[.]

24.

"What my analogy suggested was that individual cases of fraud cannot necessarily be extrapolated to discredit a broader movement or system. "

The "official" analysis for NZ land based temps.

You're too nice Graham. You're what spivs call a "born customer". If you're going to swallow this junk, don't expect me to be happy about it when you want the Feds to force me to pay for it at gunpoint.

ESPECIALLY when literally doing nothing as opposed to the muddle headed activism now would reduce emissions and save tax dollars. Cut off loss making farms and sustainable agriculture becomes the norm. Cut off the aluminimum smelters who are effectively paid to create externalities. We have a proscription against nuclear because Greenpeace don't understand the science.

Barry Brook has laid down the law on why nukes are cheaper, safer and would provide a higher standard of living etc. This whole debate of trying to force people to live off solar energy is a joke.

[Vikas Nayak]

25.

Errr, dissenting opinion stifling out is an actual application of the scientific method. We dont have "competing theories of momentum". The method works by weeding out bad correlations until we have a model that best represents the phenomenon in reality.

When something is shown to demonstrably incorrect, the model is altered until a better representation of the observance with higher correlatory significance is presented.

One thing that frustrates me immensely by a lot of people outside science is this mentality of democracy over merit when it comes to research. Your opinion is absolutely irrelevant in science, your research is incredibly relevant.

This is one of the reasons why science ought to be recognised as the last bastion of merit that we have, and something that shouldn't be attacked by the rabid hounds of mediocrity and those who wish to rewrite mankind's collective understanding of reality for their political agenda.

The ball really is in the denier court to come up with a model that is more representattive of the climate change model (something they have failed to do over and over again).

[Graham]

26.

>>Errr, dissenting opinion stifling out is an actual application of the scientific method.

I understand your point, and I agree, but I'm more talking about the organisational realities of academia and science that can make it extraordinarily difficult for valid research/opinions that challenge the status quo to get air time. This isn't always a matter of inadequately challenging the position, but a matter of people in positions of power having a vested interest in maintaining that status quo regardless of the validity of research that opposes it.

Journals have editors, for instance. Those editors have the power to say what is published and what isn't. They're also human. They have their own personal positions and at times this may affect their decision on whether or not to publish research, although science as an institution is less susceptible than others, by its very nature.

There is also the problem of grants where research is biased, slightly or heavily, consciously or relatively unconsciously, because there is an awareness that funding comes with a particular desired outcome.

These problems are largely unavoidable, and in the long term they're not really problems, because if the science is strong then the paradigm will eventually be overturned. Sometimes this can take a lot longer than it should though.

[Anton]

27.

Vikas

Actually, Newtonian mechanics, (Einstein) relativity and Quantum mechanics are 3 competing theories of momentum. We know Newtonian mechanics is incorrect, but the other 2 theories cannot be reconciled, which implies that at least one is incorrect.

An additional mistake you make is assuming that any science is ever "settled". If belief were upheld, neither relativity or quantum mechanics would have been developed.

A third error you make is asserting that the "ball is really in the denier court". No, it isn't. The man made climate change model is the new theory, and needs to gain acceptance over the existing beliefs. To date the alarmists have only managed to use their hypothesis to support itself. This is a religious practice, not science.

[Vikas Nayak]

28.

Anton, i think you should actually do physics at a higher level before speaking.

Newtonian Physics is an approxiamation, Relativity is PART of quantum mechanics (so i dont know how they're 3 competing theories). All you're doing is comparing Lorentzian and Einsteinian interpretations of momentum and claiming that they are 2 competing theories (despite the fact that they are 2 ways of interpreting a standard set of calculations).

I never claimed the science is settled, infact such a claim is antithetical to my statement. My statement is that theories are wittled out based on their correlatory significance. Just as with quantum physics, the classical theory of physics was replaced with a better understanding of natural phenomena. The same rule applies with climate chage, irrespective of how "new" you feel it is.

Graham, i suggest you actually apply for a research grant. I think you'll find how much of a joke public research funding is. Its one of the reasosn i went to private research in the first place.

[Andy's RANT!]

29.

Re Vikas (7)
Re Storage of Nuclear waste. Easy. Cut the used nuclear fuel rods into pieces about the size of our 20c coin. Then encase them in an artificial brick that has the same hardness properties as Quartz (It’s actually as hard as a piece of Granite Rock which is damn hard)
Then go out to the QLD outback, near Mt Isa and drill the Granodiorite batholiths (which haven’t moved for billion years and are unlikely to move for another billion years) to say a depth of 1km and then toss in the artificial bricks and seal the drill hole. Problem solved. Zero environment risk as the wasted is encase in a brick as hard a quartz contained with a massive geological Granodiorite batholith (these things are massive – many hundred/thousand cubic km’s in size) and zero risk to any water table etc. As much as it pains to say it, we could safely store all the worlds nuclear waste and make a massive trillion dollar industry from it. Beats the crap out of a Carbon tax........

Re Alex (15)
Climate change has been occurring for many millennia and will continue to happen. I suggest you read my latest blog – The Earth Really is a Tough SOB http://bit.ly/azJTPh
Do I think we humans are having an impact, sure, there’s 6 billion of us and just look at what we have done to many many ecosystems. But I don’t subscribe for one minute to the doomsday BS scenarios spewed by the alarmists and I certainly don’t think a Carbon Tax or Cap & Trade will “cool” the planet but it sure will transfer a bucket load of wealth. The COP15 debacle clearly illustrated the massive wealth grab by the 2nd/3rd world countries. How ironic then was it to have China standback at COP15 and say this whole process is a con.
Sure elements of the right have jumped on the AGW bandwagon as they also want to cash in on the trillions that will literally be transferred.
The AGW “science” is politicized and it’s classic Marxist technique of if you can’t win the debate, then control the language of the debate. Just look how sceptics are equated to be like holocaust deniers.
Besides, the human race has flourished in the last 10,000 years thanks to warmer conditions. Ever wondered why plants and animals thrive in warmer climates? Because it’s optimum for life.

[Anton]

30.

Vikas

I have, that was after completing an engineering degree.

Newtonian physics was considered accurate, not an approximation, and relativity is not part of quantum mechanics. In fact they are fundamentally irreconsilabledue to relativity being deterministic and quantum mechanics being intrinsically stochastic. The two can match in certain cases (which happens to be our everyday world)by a "correspondence principle", but that does not make them compatible. But you knew this, right?

Climate change remains a theory, as there is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis. A computer model can only be part of the hypothesis, not the proof as well. Therefore, your statement that "The same rule applies with climate chage" is fundamentally incorrect.

[Vikas Nayak]

31.

Correspondence principle has to do with how quantum mechanics mimics classical physics (if i remember correctly, and i cant be arsed to go grab my university text books right now). Infact, i think you're talking specifically about Einstein's special relativity rather than relativity in general. I think your point is incredibly ambiguous at this point and doesn't exactly support anything you've said so far.

But moving on, how on earth, as an engineer you can call a model not a theory is simply beyond me. Seriously? I suppose number theory is an unproven hypthesis too since its completely abstract and only exists as a model.

TO quote Issac Asimov "There is a single light of science, and to brighten that somewhere, is to brighten that everywhere". The same rule does apply, and this is why deniers aren't involved in research, because their position is unfalsifiable.

[Anton]

32.

Vikas

As a free service - the correspondence principle means that the mathematical form (of QM or relativity) reduces to Newtonian formulation when variables are of "everyday" scale. I hope that helped, leave your text books to prop up the table.

A model is just that - a model. To elevate that to a "scientific law" requires that it is proven to emulate actual physical events. This being achieved by rigid experementation (this is the part not yet achieved by "alarmists")

An engineering model is a collection of proven (don't go on about provability please) and empirical data, sort of "science lite".

Your comment about number theory is odd - mathematics is a completely abstract science, so the proof would be completely abstract. Not sure I want to know what you did with your maths books.

The point is, alarmists are asking society to incur great cost and disruption on very doubtful science and even an unproven crisis.

To make efficiency savings and reduce pollution are sensible, and usually at negligable cost. But to destroy industry and drastically reduce living standards requires greater proof.

[Graham]

33.

>>A model is just that - a model. To elevate that to a "scientific law" requires that it is proven to emulate actual physical events.

As far as I know, no one is attempting to elevate AGW to a scientific law. It is a theory. In a similar fashion to the way Evolution cannot be said to be law or fact because it's longer term implications are untestable. That doesn't mean it's not a robust theory supported by evidence.

So are you suggesting that science should not be used to initiate public policy unless it can be considered established, testable, replicatable, fact?

[Vikas Nayak]

34.

Actually im pretty sure Anton is a wiki warrior right now.

Scientific "laws" are discrete functions that consistently provide data. They are not an explaination for any phenomena. For example, the law of gravity consists of numereous constants such as the universal gravitational constant as well as the acceleration dure to gravity on earth (9.8 ms^-2). Contrast this with the multitude of competing "Theories of Gravity", which are an attempt to explain the natural phenomena.

Things aren't "elevated" to "scientific law", because as per the philosophy of empiricism, the most we can ever state is that we have a "theory".

But what you said, is probably closer to what he is getting at, not so much testable and replicable, but "Established".

[Elizabeth]

35.

“Only when politicians are prepared to examine the science of climate change on its merits, rather than through their own political interests can we hope to reach a conclusion in the best interest of our nation.”

Suffice to say, the above is not a description of what is happening is Australia at the moment. Julia Gillard and Bob Brown have organized a farcical, cross-party team – no dissenters allowed – to examine the question of AGW.

Can anyone please say how this is other than a farce when both sides of the question are not rigorously examined? Can anyone say that this farce is not other than a set up for something dishonest?

What a great pity the majority voice is so comprehensively ignored in Australia. What a pity people do not take to the streets and force Gillard and Co. to listen to their point-of-view, their concerns about rapidly increasing costs of day-to-day living.

The only way they will listen is if they think there are lost votes aplenty and particularly is that the case currently.

For too long the average Aussie has sat back and let the bleating of “morally superior” minorities hold sway to the great detriment of all. How superior these minorities are when things start to go wrong is a question which is never examined, but ordinary people pay in spades for the results of their so-called superiority.

I do not, and have not believed that the changing climate, manifest over the past few years is other than part of an ongoing cycle of climatic change. One has only to read history – as far back as the ancients – to know this. It is surprising how well climate and other social conditions are mapped in the pages of history.

Anecdotally, I well remember summers as a girl and young woman in the Australian bush (farmer’s daughter) when the temperature would reach 110o fahrenheit or more and stay – with small degree drops overnight – for 10 days or more at a time. Yet we are told when we have had a few hot days in recent times that this is due to catastrophic climate change. What nonsense. I can recollect no great catastrophe as a consequence of a few hot days.

One of the most annoying aspects of this whole schemozzle is that it is well documented that temperature readings which feed into AGW theory are taken from weather stations immediately next to bitumen roads or other dubious locations (and we all know how much heat bitumen or concrete absorbs and radiates – most have drives) to appreciate how dishonest this is.

In addition, there are thousands of scientists – and the number keeps growing – disowning climate change theory as little more than a fraud. There was the climate gate scandal at an English University last year, there is the dishonest, vested interest of the president of the IPCC, not to mention the very, very fat and ever inflating coffers of arch warmist Gore.

Even more annoying is that some, like one of our supremo warmists, was attempting to create personal wealth by not declaring a vested interest in a venture backed by taxpayer money. I was under the impression that this was illegal in Australia – or if not, morally questionable. But this bod proceeded with impunity (even when it was publicized and then pointed out to a politician who clearly did not understand the concept of vested interest, or cared less) in the end wasting many, many thousands of taxpayer’s dollars with nothing to show for it.

Can this AGW nonsense be stopped? One supposes not because so many are getting rich at the expense of the ordinary person who generally sits back and says nothing much – not even when the chance presents at an election.

The only recent example of people power was the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull who was co-governing on this issue with the Labor Party. People said enough and they made it clear enough was enough. Someone listened, but only for the time being. What now? Is anyone in a position of power listening or caring?

The puzzling thing is that people accept this nonsense, even though the “debate” has been one-sided, left driven emotive twaddle, and still has not progressed beyond finger pointing – he said, no, she said - schoolyard nonsense. How is it that people can suspend critical, rational thinking on such a crucially important issue as AGW?

How is the debate progressed when a well-reasoned piece is posted and the response is more of the - he said, she said, no she didn’t, type rubbish and, all too often, abuse, which seems to be the infantile notion of healthy debate in Australia.

The present situation – the Gillard/Brown, one-sided committee closed to actual debate and rigorous enquiry – is dangerous in the sense that, before too much longer people will not be able to afford the electricity to run their air-conditioning, flat-screen TVs and other valued appliances they have worked hard for, were entitled to buy and should be able to use without punitive charges and feelings of guilt created by “elites” and their sermonizing.

I am tired of the mostly empty, endless debate on AGW that progresses nowhere. It’s about time people began to wake up to what is happening; to the direction our democracy is headed and manned the barricades. If not, our already soaring cost-of-living which is causing many families much hardship, is set to become much, much worse.

What’s the betting we have a raft of massive new taxes before much longer and that a carbon tax will be one of them?

Time for a bit of commonsense folks. Time to speak out and not too politely, but loudly and incessantly. Time to get out in the streets to make a point. If pensioners could do it in order to point out the injustice of their plight, then young, able-bodied people with much to lose should care enough to protest about this farcical AGW nonsense which is on the way to costing them dearly.

[Grantley]

36.

yes, and on it goes Elizabeth. I, too, remember those long hot summers, sleeping on the verandah or lawn (if it was still alive), airconditioning un-heard of....and yes, I too survived......miraculous!!

The madness seems to have no bounds, I quote from the Australian today, Mr Mike Taylor of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who said "The Murray-Darling Basin plan is in fact not our doing, but the elected officials doing".....Mr Taylor went on to admit that the guides modelling was 'inappropriate'.........????????

Buckle up people, we are in for a rough ride as Joolya & her band of idiots take the controls, the train is reaching dangerous speeds.

[Elizabeth]

37.

Grantly, thank you for your comment. It is good to get a non-abusive response to what is, from my poin-of-view, plain commonsense.

Mike Taylor's comments on the culpability of elected officials is music to my ears.

Anyone with half a mind knows that governments set the conditions- eg irrigation schemes, and people, in good faith, plan their livelihood around those schemes.

It is not elected officials or group-think bureaucrats who suffer, but ordinary people who sometimes lose everything - like a lifetimes work, all their assets and are left in despair and with little for the future.

What belating there would be if Gillard, Brown and Co were forced into the same sort of situation.

As long back as the late 1800s,early 1900s Ion Idriess was writing(and appealing) about the need for dams and water planning, recognising what politicians have never been smart enough to - that Australia is a very dry continent and that water planning should have been a paramount concern.

The inescapable conclusion is that politicians and governments lack much up top compared to their benighted constituents - benighted because they have made them so.