Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to ’take back climate science’ - Orlando Seminole County Environmental News | Examiner.com

In the following interview, Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, questions the prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and challenges his peers to “take back climate science.” His remarks are his personal opinion based upon 19 years of scientific research.

Examiner.com: What drives climate change on Earth?

Dr. Soon: Most of the weather and climate variations we observed are essentially related to the sun and the changing seasons – not by CO2 radiative forcing and feedback. The climate system is constantly readjusting naturally in a large way – more than we would ever see from CO2. The CO2 kick [impact of CO2 emissions] is extremely small compared to what is happening in a natural way. Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything.

Examiner.com: What is your opinion of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theory?

Dr. Soon: It’s never been about the science – even from the very beginning. It’s based on confusion and a mixture of ideology. We should deal only in the facts that we do know.

Examiner.com: Many of the scientists promoting the global warming theory appear to be driven by politics rather than hard scientific data. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Soon: I am a scientist. I go where the facts take me. And the facts are fairly clear. It doesn’t take very long to discover that their views [of man-caused global warming] aren’t grounded in the facts. Why would any solid science need so much promotion and advertisement and the endless shouting about how the science has all been “settled”? And now we’re supposed to believe that the growing consensus on the street that humans are not responsible for global warming is due mainly to the confusion created by climate “deniers.”

via www.examiner.com

Click through for the full article.

Thanks to reader Andy Semple

Comments

[Andy's RANT!]

1.

Kudos to the eminent Harvard astrophysics scientist, Dr. Hoon, in finally calling AGW the croc that it is.
I’ve said it before and I’ll happily say it again, I also think it is presumptuous to think we (humans) are a match for the sun and I also don’t want to be taxed just for breathing.

Gillard’s Climate committee is to have their first meeting today. The makeup of the committee reminds me of a KFC meal that contains 6 Left wings and 1 a..hole

[Mook]

2.

This has never been a battle about who is more powerful. I think it would be foolhardy to believe that humans are more "powerful" than the sun: but what does powerful even mean? The Sun, sure, has raw power, but we, as humans, have a lot of power and control and we use it.

Climate Change (Global Warming is the incorrect terminology, because this is not just about everything become warmer, but the entire climate system changing, quite possibly irreparably) is a theory: however, it is a theory with evidence, credible scientists, and it is a theory that cannot be ignored.

Dr. Hoon is certainly entitled to his opinions, and for all I know, they could be valid. However, one scientist out of thousands, regardless of the fact he may be from Harvard, is not proof of any sort against Climate Change. Gravity, for example, something that we all accept as patently true today, was staunchly denied by some scientists at the time of its discovery. This does not make it false: just controversial. This is exactly the same as Climate Change. It's controversial, and disputed, but most scientists agree that it is true, and that it is coming. They also agree on a lot of the evidence. Some dispute it, sure, and they could be right, but this is a threat that cannot and should not be ignored. If it is correct, we could have irreparably damaged our planet for future generations.

This debate has nothing to do with being stronger than the sun (whatever 'stronger' means). And one scientist, or ten for that matter, does not disprove a theory backed by tens of thousands, or the amount of evidence that has been collated.

[Adrian Murdoch]

3.

Unfortunately, Mr Soon appears to have little scientific credibility. He has not released an academic paper in several years, and when he did, he was a member of the Fraser Institute think tank, funded by ExxonMobil and other oil companies.

I am happy to take stock of genuine scientific arguments that object to the AGW hypothesis, but not from Willie Soon.

[Vikas Nayak]

4.

Willie Soon

Yeah i know this guy, he's spends his time running around for the heartland institute doing presentations on the sun, and why sattelite data is more accurate than ground data (of course, both have their drawbacks which is why a range of data sources are used).

It's like im having a Fieldings moment right now.

[Pip]

5.

5 July 2010
ABC RN -COUNTERPOINT

Climate: the counter consensus by Bob Carter

For years Professor Carter has been critical of the global warming doomsday scenario. Yes, he says the temperatures have risen over the last century. But climate always changes. And, he argues further, human impact is negligible. He discusses his new book Climate: the counter consensus.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2941985.htm

Professor Carter's book was launched in Melbourne tonight.

[Mook]

6.

Bob Carter, eh?

Now where was he from again?

That's right, from the he's a member of Institute for Public Affairs. The group that receive their funding from Woodside Petroleum, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil), and over a dozen other companies in the energy industry. That's not a conflict of interest at all!

(Sources: http://newmatilda.com/node/1585?ArticleID=1585&HomepageID=142, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter, http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html)

So Mr. Soon's funded by Big Oil, Mr. Carter's funded by, (guess who?), Big Oil.... see a pattern?

Try again!

[Mook]

7.

Ugh: silly hyperlinking!

Here are the proper links:
http://newmatilda.com/node/1585?ArticleID=1585&HomepageID=142

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html

[Dallas Beaufort]

8.

How long will it take for the so called c.s.i.r.o and bureau of meteorology to stand up for their professions? and admit the truly observed facts and finally support the current evidence,long range weather/climate forecasts produced by Inigo Jones et al, and the overwhelming evidence now boxing them into a very dark denial corner. Or will this taxpayer funded, so called scientific realm of guardian protectors of the political truth,as usual continue to try and outrun truths time to protect their funded pensions and milk the supposed political climate change causes for all their indefinitely worth? Definitely not in the Australian public's interest. While these institutions were playing politics and misadventure, real advantages were thrown to the wind. Now lets see who can make a new start using all of their current resources, considering all of the billions spent in an endless chase of the tigers political tail.

[Mook]

9.

The so-called Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation? They have made many innovation that have changed and improved Australia: their recent work with microfibers comes to mind.

Now, in your assertions, you claim that there is "overwhelming evidence" against global warming. Care to elaborate? There is certainly evidence for global warming, with many tens of thousands of scientists agreeing with the consensus reached by the UN and other nations. There is overwhelming evidence: for global warming at least, as you have provided little to none for there not being global warming, and if you read my previous post, you will find the evidence for global warming, as will a couple of quick google searches.

[Dallas Beaufort]

10.

Mook, If that is your real name? No it must be a joke. In answer to you points, I suggest you take your rectal thermometer and lay it between 2 sheets of concrete 1 meter apart and tell me how hot your measurement is on a global warming/climate change scale?

[Mook]

11.

Oh, feisty! I love it!

It's quite amazing how you can say so much about your credibility while saying so very little of substance! Are you a politician?

[Dallas Beaufort]

12.

Mook, Come clean and tell me what you real name is, Are you trying to help lead the funding parade as a compliant supporter or just doing it for a feind or just a compliant friend? And finally do you know what Indgo Jones(RIP) produced though observation?

[Mook]

13.

What in the world does my 'name' have anything to do with what I've been saying? Just curiously? Does it at all matter? And if my name was Mook, how would that change anything at all?

Hmm, "compliant supporter", "fiend" or "compliant friend?" Well, I've always liked to think my self as a combination of all three: as, who could possibly have an opinion that differ's with Dallas's without being some sort of fiend?

And yes, I do know what Inigo Jones produced: weather maps. Lots of them. As a long term weather "scientist" he was known for his eccentric predictions.

Did you know that, in truth, "he based his forecasts partly on sunspot activity and the orbits of the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus?" Just because he was correct in predicting the drought of 2010, doesn't mean he was right about everything: even a stuck clock is right twice a day.

--

But, for the sake of argument, let's presume that this Inigo Jones is magical and is able to incredibly predict the weather! Yay for him!

Now even if this is true, does not make it incorrect that we can change the weather. Most scientists do not believe that climate change will have extremely large changes in the weather, nor do they believe that it's happening right now (at least for Australia). Just as he was right about this incident, and possibly others, does not mean that in the future, when the effects of climate change become apparent, he will still be correct.

If his predictions showed anything, it's that the effects of climate change are not apparent in Australia yet. Not that climate change doesn't exist at all!

[Ben]

14.

Mook – Andy is right. First it was “global cooling” then it became “global warming.” Now it is “climate change”? Give me a break.

And please explain man’s relationship with thousands of years of preindustrial climate changes. Are we to forget the Egyptian Cooling and the Roman Warming? Or pretend that the Pharaohs and Emperors drove cars? The sun tells us more than a fake consensus.

And Mook, you might want to tell the “credible scientists” to stop shredding their data and closing debates because they're confusing “science” with Stalinism.

[Mook]

15.

Now, even though Global Cooling wasn't supported by many scientists, and was a beat up in the media, does not mean that climate change doesn't have merit. It was never Global Warming. 'Global Warming' is an anachronism, as climate change refers to all sorts of man-made changes in the environment, not necessarily just heat. The correct terminology is, and always has been, climate change.

In response to your second paragraph on "man's relationship" with climate before industrial changes: well, man still had an impact, that is for sure, however the impact was not as great nor as dangerous as the one we face today. Let me make one point clear:
Just because climate changes in places independently of CO2 and carbon emissions, does not mean that CO2 and carbon emissions do not have an effect on climate.

And just because we survived events like the Egyptian Cooling, does not mean we should be antagonistic and reckless about the way we deal with the environment: you don't let people recklessly shoot at you when previously you survived a gun shot wound.

Shredding data? What are you on about? I would not be surprised if there are some climate scientists who accept climate change who are corrupt, firstly, as there are so many who believe in climate change, there's always the danger that a couple will be corrupt. That's an inherent risk, and certainty when you have so many people. Secondly, there are far more corrupt scientists who believe that climate change is a "fraud." See: this Dr. Soon funded by Big Oil, Bob Carter funded by, guess who?, Big Oil etc.

[Georgina]

16.

Andy is right and good comment Ben. No one seems to have heard of Egyptian cooling and crops failing or the Roman warming period. Hoon and thousands of other scientists agree with him. BUT THEY ARE NOT TO BE HEARD. This propaganda extends to the disgusting video of little children being bombed and hanged unless they believe in climate channge. This is evil.

Have you ever heard of just one country, Peru - and the Moche people in 600AD experiencing climate change as has happened since time began? They had 30 years of very warm weather then 30 years of very cold weather. They prepared for each change. For one thing they piped water throughout the country when the rains came to water the land and crops on which they relied in the hot and dry. AND they did not have the technology we have today. They did not let flood waters rush into the sea for one thing.

UK meteorologists state that this winter with them will be one of the coldest. And yet we are going to tax carbon which is the lifeblood of trees, plants and crops. I KNOW it was hotter several decades ago because we experienced a temperature of 106 deg. F in Sydney one year and these high temperatures (heatwaves) lasted several days. There were many heatwaves in the 1940s/50s. Then it cooled down and later very cold winters.

Once this tax is levied on Australians it will probably not be able to be rescinded when the climate changes to cold. Even NASA scientists say the sun is going quiet which could issue in a "Maunder" effect (cold weather). And this tax will all be for nothing only make the cost of living unsustainable for most Australians.

As for Lord Stern telling us not to eat meat because of the methane gas from cows is ridiculous. And it is now said that farmers will be charged for cows because of the methane gas coming from them. How will farmers like that? There is more methane exuded from the contrails of aeroplanes than billions of cows. Think on that! The pollution from aeroplanes is tremendous, and Ministers especially the Government Ministers with their entourage are contributing to this pollution by jetting around the world. Has anyone heard of teleconferences?

If we cannot think of some way of dealing with changes in climate other than a tax, we ought to go back to the 7th century when they did know how to deal with it.

[Pip]

17.

Very entertaining guys!

Did you see its the anniversary of John Lennon's birthday?

His 70th birthday would have been today...

Google is playing Imagine!

[Pip]

18.

Mook,

I'm not seeking knock out punches, I'll leave that to Dallas Beaufort ( very amusing by the way ) here, here!

Thanks for the Inigo Jones info, I've never heard that before, but in looking at it, found this local research of Dr Robert Baker.

Perhaps Mook, you can find out if he is funded by

" BIG OIL"??

*******

Sun's pulses point to drenching rain

Matthew Warren, Environment writer From: The Australian

March 19, 2007 12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/suns-pulses-point-to-drenching-rain/story-e6frg8gf-1111113179558

[Pip]

19.

Dallas,

Inigo Owen Jones (1 December 1872 - 14 November 19540.
He was an engineer and descendant of the famous Architect Inigo Jones.

In 1874 Jones's parents migrated to Australia, settling on a property called Crohamhurst in the Glass House Mountains north of Brisbane in eastern Queensland...The Queensland Government metereologist Clement Lindley Wragge was so impressed with Inigo's ability as a schoolboy that he recruited him as an assistant in 1888.

Jones studied the variation in sunspot cycles that had been discovered by Edouard Bruckner, and came to the conclusion that anomalies were caused by the interaction of the planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

His son-in-law Lennox Walker expanded Jones' theories and continued marketing long range forecasts until 2000, when he passed the business over to his own son Hayden Walker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inigo_Owen_Jones

Very interesting.

******

There is a new theory published in Nature, that warming on earth is inversely proportional to a quiet sun!

It is a very short study and is being hawked by AGW alarmists, Mooks mob.

If scientists got off this AGW gravy train we might stand a chance of actually making a real scientific discovery here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/06/study-sheds-new-light-on-how-the-sun-affects-the-earths-climate/#more-25993

[Andy's RANT!]

20.

Thanks to Georgina & Ben for backing me up.

Mook. If you think for one moment that our planets climate is influenced more by humans than our Sun then you’ve accepted the AGW alarmists assertions hook, line & sinker. The science is still out on a whole lot reasons for what influences our climate – which I might add has been changing for billions of years.

Have a look at this story for example -http://bit.ly/attUlW - Global warming theory in chaos after report finds increased solar activity may COOL the Earth. If the new findings apply to long as well as short time periods, this could translate into a small degree of cooling rather than the slight warming effect shown in existing climate models. It would effectively turn received wisdom on its head.

Please tell me, Mook, what should the temperature be? Should it be the temperatures that the planet experienced 1,000 years ago during which Greenland was settled as a farming community and during which wine grapes were grown in Scotland? Should it be the temperatures of 300 years ago when the Little Ice Age ended the inhabitation of Greenland and the Thames iced over? Should it be the temperatures of 829 A.D. when the Nile River froze? Unlike a car, we can’t just dial an ideal temperature.
Tell me, Mook, what effect would a Carbon Tax of say, $10, $100 or even $1,000 per tonne will have on Australia’s climate, in tangible terms like how much of a reduction of temperature in tenths of a degree Celsius or drop in sea levels in millimetres.
It’s a safe bet to make that not one climate alarmist can satisfactorily provide this information.

How is taxing electricity is going to cool the planet? If Gillard has her way, cheap power will become a thing of the past and many hundreds of thousands if not millions of Australians will not be able to cope. Power isn’t a luxury like a Mercedes Benz, it’s a necessity and the ALP & the Greens in their endeavour to appease the Green God will sacrifice the living standards of Australians for a ZERO environmental gain because I can tell you and your Green ilk the Chinese, Indians and the Yanks won’t be doing anything as economy destructive as our green glued government.
But there is one certain thing, there’s a lot of “Green to be made” in being Green.

[Graham]

21.

>>Andy is right and good comment Ben. No one seems to have heard of Egyptian cooling and crops failing or the Roman warming period.

This is fallacious logic, with all due respect Georgina. I don't think even the most vehement climate change proponents argue that climate change does not also occur naturally, but that does not negate the possibility that our C02 emissions, which have increased dramatically over the last couple of hundred years, also affect the climate negatively.

There is evidence of the prevelence of cancer in ancient times, pre-dating cigarettes. Does this mean that cigarettes don't contribute?

[Pip]

22.

[Graham]

23.

Your reply really had nothing to do with my point, Pip. So I'm not sure why you addressed it to me.

[Vikas Nayak]

24.

I'm noticing a common theme with the sites being listed as "counter AGW" stories. It seems that everyone who ISN'T working in the fields directly involved with climate change are experts...and the scientists who arepublishing articles are supposedly in a giant conspiracy to defraud the right wing.

You'll have to excuse me while i scratch my head on that one. BTW, the latest article in nature, which antony watt's jumped on spells disaster for Willie Soon and Richard Linzden, since they have always advocated that it was Infra-red radiation causing global warming (for which they published a paper in 2007 showing 30 years of correlatory data).

The new article shows that a shift from UV radiation to Visible light radiation had a 3 year correlatory affect (something the original author of the article notes is interesting and warrenting of more research), however, that doesn't detract from the fact that at most we can claim 30 years of correlation between the solar data and global warming...while the sun contributes, those gasses are doing a mighty good job of keeping the heat on the planet, and have been for as long as we've had a temperature record.

Might be an idea if people did something more constructive and construct a model of the effects of a planet without rising greenhouse levels.

[Pip]

25.

Graham,

I started out addressing my previous post to you, with regard to your comments:

>that does not negate the possibility that our C02 emissions, which have increased dramatically over the last couple of hundred years, also affect the climate negatively.

My comment was that the warming component of CO2 is minimal, 0.7% of a degree.

Granted the rest of my post was in part addressed to BULMKT for ignoring the fact that I had already mentioned the new solar activity research.

Vikas Nayak addresses it again, the fact that it is counter-intuitive that in the period of study 2004-2007 when sun-cycle 23 was in decline, that visible light to earth increased, whilst UV decreased.

I'm not a scientist so I'm not sure if infra-red and visible light are equivalent. I think it is too early to suggest Richard Linzen's work is compromised.

"Three years does not a swallow make."

The point I tried to make is that everyone will claim the results as a victory for their bias.

[Pip]

26.

There is an interesting two part interview on this very question of why Experts can't be trusted, which I commend to you.

The interview addresses Medical science but the situation is exactly the same with Climate science.

ABC RN Counterpoint has dealt with a story over two weeks dealing with bad science in medicine in part 1 and the failure of experts in business in part 2.

27 September 2010

Why should we trust the experts? Part 1

Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, consultants, health officials and more
Author: David Freedman
Publisher: Little, Brown

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/3020322.htm

4 October 2010

Why should we trust the experts? Part 2

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/3026957.htm

[Vikas Nayak]

27.

You know pip, i do R&D in eHealth, and its nice to know what people who have no medical knowledge like to think they know about medical science. Luckily i dont have to give advice, but to tell you the truth, if they think im part of some huge conspiracy....i'm clearly not getting paid enough.

I guess this is a draw back of specialisation, people just dont know enough, and people that specialise know a LOT about the topic they specialise in. I suppose that could be seen as a conspiracy by the intellectually lazy.

[Grantley]

28.

Pip: are you aware of the definition of an "expert" (it doesn't write as well as when spoken...but I think you will get it)....

"X" is in the unknown factor.
"spurt" is a drip under pressure.

Probably explains a fair bit. :)

Well said Bulmkt, very well said.

[.]

29.

This is truly mind blowing stuff:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1658-legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-.html

Legal Defeat For Global Warming In Kiwigate Scandal

In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.

New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.

NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.

According to NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American doomsaying scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.

The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that it’s climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.

Indeed, the original Kiwi records shows no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared.

[Grantley]

30.

and this is what angers so many people...the manipulation, the half truths, the carefully constructed stories to support an arguement...in short the dis-honesty that comes from people who should (& do) know better, but in order to protect their lucrative grants they are prepared to stoop to any level.

Things like this only serve to undermine the communities confidence in the science, and whilst some will trumpet thats what some in our society (eg "big Oil") want, the great unwashed (of which I am proudly one), only want the truth and solutions, not half baked schemes to make lots of money for the few.

I too, like Bulmkt, say no, any tax on breathing.

And while I'm on the soapbox....The Murray Darling report...yet another example of the lack of integration in policy thinking, its all very well to say you are going to put all this water back, but this morning there will be tens of thousands of country people despairing for their futures as a result of a report that is totally in-adequate and obviously prepared to appease one section of society whilst totally ignoring those who live and work at the coal face.

How would city people be feeling this morning if the news was that water was going to turned off to cities to preserve it for food production ?

Perhaps thats the way it should be, afterall its the urban based greens who dont want damns built.

Going now....kicks soap box!!

[Pip]

31.

Grantley and the black spot,

Great posts.

Vikas Nayak,

No where here have I said there is a grand conspiracy.

I'm not sure if you listened to Counterpoint, I would have to listen again to check if Conspiracy was mentioned. I think not.

The point is that some people, some scientists put the economic imperative of keeping the grant money before the truth. As Freedman says, it can be an unconscious bias.

*****

The Murray Darling basin:

It is probably way too late for Victoria to turn its pipeline around and run it in the other direction?
The Government is piping water south from the Murray to the City!

They have also commenced work on the biggest Desal plant in the World, that since the rains came will perhaps only be needed intermittently! But, under the agreement, Victorians will pay for it even while it is not in use.

This is a case of Climate panic getting the whole thing back the front?

[Andy Semple]

32.

Dot & Grantley are also correct with their observation about the manipulation of data by the AGW alarmists. The alarmists constantly say the “science is on their side” yet we again and again witness outright fraud (climategate, glaciergate, kiwigate) with the raw data to suit their Armageddon climate scenarios.
I have also just finished writing a new blog, titled The Earth really doesn’t care about what is done to or for it. You can read it here http://bit.ly/azJTPh or wait until MH post it next week.

[Steve]

33.

It's a pity it's costing us academics leaving the field in utter frustration: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
We should hang our heads in shame!

[Mook]

34.

This is going to be long (I've been away), so just get through it!

@Georgina: I'm just going to repost Graham's excellent comment on your post, as it summarised things far better than I could!

"This is fallacious logic, with all due respect Georgina. I don't think even the most vehement climate change proponents argue that climate change does not also occur naturally, but that does not negate the possibility that our C02 emissions, which have increased dramatically over the last couple of hundred years, also affect the climate negatively.

There is evidence of the prevelence of cancer in ancient times, pre-dating cigarettes. Does this mean that cigarettes don't contribute?"

@Pip: (Comment 17) "Very entertaining". I try my best! (I know this is not directed towards me, sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet anyway!)

@Pip: (Comment 18) Just because I said that both of these scientists, who disagree with the theory of climate change, (see what I did there? Just because they don't agree with the theory of climate change I didn't call them deniers, showing common courtesy. Perhaps you guys should, instead of calling people alarmists, be more respectful? Just a thought.... ) are funded by oil corporations, did not call all scientists who disagree with climate change funded by oil, or corrupt in any sense, just that there is a pattern that many scientists who disagree with the theory of climate change are corrupt and have ulterior motives.

@Pip: (Comment 19) "Mooks Mob". Oh, I have a mob now, I am extremely honoured!

May I make something clear: Inigo Jones based many of his theories off the movement of planets. Just fathom that for a minute. We call people who do that now clairvoyants: of course, some of you who think that we "shouldn't trust the experts" would love them!

@BULMKT: "If you think for one moment that our planets climate is influenced more by humans than our Sun..." Were in the world did I say that? Or did anyone say that?

Understand this: this is not a battle of supremacy over the sun and humans! The sun has a massive impact on the earth's climate, I think we can all agree on that: does not mean humans (or better, their actions) don't have an impact. The changes we are looking at here with climate change are no where close to the power of the sun, just differently focussed.

"Please tell me, Mook, what should the temperature be?"

Well, as you said please, of course I'll oblige.

The temperature shouldn't be fixed. There's no magic temperature.

Doesn't mean we, humans, should be recklessly using resources that change the temperature, possibly irreparably. The Earth is incredible, as it has found the optimum temperatures for many places, due to the structure of biology and our environmental system: we should not be changing that.

You then go on to changing the topic to the ETS. In fact, I don't agree with the ETS and that has nothing to do with this debate about climate change!

@Pip: (Comment 25/26) "Why experts can't be trusted."

Seriously?

Don't trust the experts?

That is ludicrous, and I hope you know it Pip.

Should we get rid of Doctors, Specialists?
They're experts after all!

You know what?
In fact, we should just crowd source everything!
Want to have chemotherapy?
Ask twitter!
[/sarcasm]

@Andy: "The Earth Doesn't Care What Is Done to It, Go For It."

Oh dear.
By that logic, why don't we go detonating nuclear bombs everywhere! The Earth doesn't give a damn, apparently! Go for it!

[Grantley]

35.

@Pip: (Comment 25/26) "Why experts can't be trusted."

Seriously?

Don't trust the experts?

That is ludicrous, and I hope you know it Pip.

Should we get rid of Doctors, Specialists?
They're experts after all!

And neither should we trust them explicitly and without question...at the end of the day they are only human beings, complete with all the flaws that come with...being a human being. The road is littered with very costly mistakes of many experts that were not questioned and scrutinised.

I am happy to give respect to anyone...where it is earned by deed, not birth, qualification or title.

Good evening.

[Graham]

36.

I agree with you Grant and you put it well.

But where is the line? At what point do we trust the experts?

That's an important question and one that should be continually asked and examined. I agree with you in that.

But there is a line. There must be, if the idea of an expert is to hold any weight at all, and our institutions are to serve their purpose. There is no doubt that there are inevitably some who will exploit, manipulate, or co-opt the premise for their own aims. We are, after all, human beings.

[Pip]

37.

Grantley 30.35,
Mook. 34,
Graham.36,

Anyone---Who has taken on the experts issue?

None of you, except for perhaps Graham have listened to the Counterpoint Interview with Freeman. They set out at the beginning of the Interview which "experts" are under contention. In part 1 it is medical scientific research, NOT medical specialists or surgeons.

Graham.36.

Thank you for getting the point.

Freeman does not actually say,
>>>some who will exploit, manipulate, or co-opt the premise for their own aims.<<<

He is softer, in saying, "unconscious bias" and I think this is something we are all aware of. No scientific research is completely objective or value free,ie completely free from our subjective input. This has been known in the social sciences for at least 60 odd years, so Freeman is saying nothing new.

It makes the Climate change issue so fraught because each side truly believes its own bias. Climate change is a very good example, yet many people seem to have forgotten the role of "the observer" and over-react saying there could not possibly be such a wide spread conspiracy. It is not a conscious conspiracy, except with some of the money men, Al Gore, comes to mind.

Mook.34.

I was not using sarcasm in reporting John Lennon's 70th anniversary, it just came up on the Google logo, so I mentioned it, perhaps, in my mind I did see it as an olive branch?

You interpreted it as sarcasm against you when in fact it was pure coincidence.

You see this is how our subjective bias' works in conversation and in research.

[Mook]

38.

"an olive branch"

That must be the most perverted and peculiar 'olive branch' that has ever been given to me: twenty minutes after the said olive branch was outreached, you mock me, asking if he is funded by "BIG OIL" (capitals your own).

An olive branch indeed.

So, the rest of your comment: after listening to the rest of Counterpoint, and your summation of the Counterpoint interview, I do agree with you, definitely about "unconscious bias". You're right that indeed, nothing is completely objective, or free from any subjective input. This is why we have peer-reviewing in the leading journals, and why there has been so many different articles on the theory of climate change, how it works, who it will affect, all coming to similar conclusions (with the variables generally being temperature changes and larger impacts).

Also, you say that there could be "a wide spread conspiracy" (albeit unconscious) over climate change. I don't know if you personally believe that; you didn't make it clear. So as to ensure that if you don't believe that, I will not direct this at you.

There could be a conspiracy, sure. There could also be a conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon; or that we live in a TV, with everyone around us actors. Doesn't make it true!

With peer-reviewed articles, and so many ways for scientists who disagree with climate change to make their views heard, it is extremely unlikely (albeit, not impossible) for climate change to be a conspiracy (unconscious or not). (this is all my opinion, and I'm sure many will come and start to disagree with me, but what the hey?) And most of the arguments by the people who disagree with the theory of climate change rebuked and rebutted, again adds to the fact that it is unlikely for it to be a conspiracy.

[Pip]

39.

I believe it was Vikas Nayek,27. that mentioned Conspiracy. I think I later took exception to the insinuation that I peddle Conspiracy theories, because it is a theme that came up firstly with Graham directly and Vikas Nayek indirectly, now you.

As I've said before, it is the swiftest way to discredit a person's opinion so know one listens to them. It is a technique perfected by those who support totalitarianism. It is the silencing of free speech. I'm reading Hayek's, "Road to Serfdom", so I am touchy on being silenced.

Peer Review of medical research is put under the spotlight by Freeman too, it is generally performed by three scientists of the same milieu and bias. Climategate showed that the IPPC peer review system and the cohort of scientists within the "Climate science" who's who is very small and they all collaborate.

If you want to call it mocking you, by asking if you thought Dr Robert Baker was "Big Oil", the point is that you are signalling your bias like a headlight. Quite frankly, it has become a bit of a joke how people of your bias will jump on any research that counters your bias by saying it has been funded by "big oil".

I'm sure if toy manufacturers produced talking dolls of Bob Brown or Christine Milne, they would say, "big polluters"!

Its a cliche Mook!

One can make fun of a bias and still shake the olive branch.....just try and lighten up, I'm trying.

The mentality of over emphasising risk, can put the planet in peril, everything is connected as Hayek would say, amonsgt others of your own bias. Breeding attitudinal fear, desperation and despondency is far riskier than 0.7% of a degree in temperature increase.

We can only begin to solve problems when we stop confecting irrational arguements to perpetuate Government funding.