Home > Environment > Delusion central

Delusion central

July 28th, 2009

Australians and others who were happy to be included on Senator James Inhofe’s list (PDF, may need converting) of “scientists” whose “work” contradicts the mainstream view on anthropogenic global warming (scare quotes deliberate) may be interested to know that Inhofe has now emerged as a Birther, or at least a fellow traveller. Of course, Inhofe is also a young earth creationist, and his list includes people like creationist weathercaster Chris Allen who has no more (and no less) relevant qualifications than most of the Australians on Inhofe’s list.

It’s sad to see people with distinguished careers like those of Don Aitkin and Ian Plimer ending up supporting lunatic conspiracy theorists like Inhofe. But the whole basis of climate science delusionism is a conspiracy theory. It’s only by invoking a conspiracy among mainstream climate scientists that delusionists can argue that any attention should be paid to the views of a minority so tiny that even a list of 650 has to be padded out with economists, retired historians, weathercasters and lots of cranks: the number of active, regularly publishing climate scientists on the list is in the single digits.

Categories: Environment Tags:
  1. Tony G
    July 28th, 2009 at 23:36 | #1

    What kind of afterbirth crap are you on about Quiggin. The only delusion being spruiked here is causation and one fact will dispel that conspiracy theory. Where is it? Cough it up or stop conspiring, alarmist.

  2. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 00:06 | #2

    @Tony G

    If there is any climate change ‘delusion’ it is to be found in claims by the filth merchant activists that mitigation is aimed at subverting western civilization, instituting socialism or is driven by nihilistic ambition or a desire to return humans to their condition in the early holocene, while claiming it’s all a wag the dog tax grab enabled by under employed computer modellers under the sway of the Gaia credo.

  3. GC
    July 29th, 2009 at 07:42 | #3

    That wasn’t very nice Tony. Surely the denialists have been telling us for years now that AGW is a scam cooked up by climate scientists to get their grasping mits on all those lucrative research grants. If that isn’t a claim that AGW is a conspiracy I don’t know what is.

    Interesting list Prof Q. Just flicked through it entirely at random – lots of engineers, the occasional economist, and, (a highlight for me) “a researcher in science and environmental issues for the Ayn Rand Institute”. As you observed, not actually that many scientists.

  4. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    July 29th, 2009 at 08:10 | #4

    Not all critics of AGW suggest that the AGW theory is a product of conspiracy. Mostly they regard advocates of AGW as suffering from delusion. So basically:-

    pro-AGW thinks anti-AGW is delusional.
    anti-AGW thinks pro-AGW is delusional.

    Further more if the majority believe something that is not true that does not necessarily amount to a conspiracy. A conspiracy generally entails a small minority that conceals the truth from the majority. So I suppose you could be an anti-AGW who believes there is a conspiracy without believing all climate scientists are in on the scam.

    Personally I’m skeptical of both the pro and anti position.

  5. jquiggin
    July 29th, 2009 at 08:45 | #5

    Terje, I suggest you apply your reasoning skills. Which is more likely

    (a) The vast majority of scientists, including nearly all specialists on climate scientists are delusional
    (b) A collection of people many of whom hold obviously delusional beliefs on a wide range of issues (Birthers, creationists, crank physicists etc) and who have strong a financial/ideological/personal stake are delusional on this issue also.

    Neutrality is just another species of delusion in this case.

  6. Paul Norton
    July 29th, 2009 at 09:06 | #6

    I have an inkling that Tony G is a close relative of Graeme Bird.

  7. Tony G
    July 29th, 2009 at 09:21 | #7

    Delusion is a misunderstanding of reality. TJ is right there is delusion on both sides of the debate. The fact is atmospheric carbon is increasing, why we do not know, nor do we know what, if any effect it is having. So to push any band wagon other than the maintaining status quo at the moment based on hearsay and is delusional.

  8. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 09:22 | #8

    C’mon JQ, AGW is a complex set of observations, inferences and projections. If someone denied that the earth has warmed over the past 70 years, perhaps you could call that a delusion but the rest of the package leaves plenty to debate and argue with. I am not qualified, so I accept the weight of scientific opinion but I am glad that there are doubters. Things get quite dangerous – in any field – when any dissenter is shouted down. I am sure you can think of many examples in your own field.

  9. Joe
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:03 | #9

    Beyond the delusionists are the extremophiles, people whose understanding of the real world is not significantly greater than negligible. For example, Rob notes
    “A piece over at New York Times online, reporting on the UK government’s plan for wind farms, produced a comment so astonishingly stupid that it ranks now even above those previously mentioned.

    The comment went thus;

    I am very concerned that these wind farms will affect the natural wind patterns thereby affecting weather patterns. A consensus of my friends who are scientists believe that a wind farm of this scale will shift the earth off its rotational axis and send it hurtling toward the sun in a matter of decades. Who stupid are these Brits? Don’t they realize that human actions on such a scale have worldwide consequences? Such an attempt to destroy the planet should be considered an act against humanity and declaration of war. Where is the condemnation from the UN?“.

  10. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:08 | #10

    Ken, the problem isn’t that there are AGW sceptics, but rather that they aren’t sceptics at all. Rather than intelligent knowledgable probing of the science, we get a unholy mixture of lies/delusion/ignorance/wishful thinking.

  11. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:18 | #11

    @Tony G

    The fact is atmospheric carbon is increasing, why we do not know, nor do we know what, if any effect it is having.

    Actually, the reason atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing is well attested — it is (largely) the combustion of harvested carbon-based fuels. Not only does this convert carbon hitherto sequestered in the crust into carbon dioxide, but the Carbon 12 isotope attribute clearly distinguishes this CO2 from CO2 that is part of fluxes from terrestrial and marine biota, and other sinks.

    We also note the effect that this is causing as this is realised in the increase in global temperatures over pre-industrial temperatures –(0.74degC) in the last century. This was proposed as a matter of principle by Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago and is now corroborated. To date, no other excluding hypotheses have been able to replicate as accurately the patterns of the temperature anomaly we have seen. While areas of uncertainty about the magnitude and speed of biospheric changes associated with further increases in atmospheric CO2 endure, and about the interaction of dynamic elements in the climate system, the operation of sinks, the nature and scope of feedbacks etc, the basic mechanism is not a matter of serious controversy within mainstream science.

  12. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:19 | #12

    oops … this paragraph should not be blockquoted:

    Actually, the reason atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing is well attested — it is (largely) the combustion of harvested carbon-based fuels. Not only does this convert carbon hitherto sequestered in the crust into carbon dioxide, but the Carbon 12 isotope attribute clearly distinguishes this CO2 from CO2 that is part of fluxes from terrestrial and marine biota, and other sinks.

    We also note the effect that this is causing as this is realised in the increase in global temperatures over pre-industrial temperatures –(0.74degC) in the last century. This was proposed as a matter of principle by Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago and is now corroborated. To date, no other excluding hypotheses have been able to replicate as accurately the patterns of the temperature anomaly we have seen. While areas of uncertainty about the magnitude and speed of biospheric changes associated with further increases in atmospheric CO2 endure, and about the interaction of dynamic elements in the climate system, the operation of sinks, the nature and scope of feedbacks etc, the basic mechanism is not a matter of serious controversy within mainstream science.

  13. Steve
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:25 | #13

    I also want there to be doubters who put forward scientific arguments in mainstream science forums and for their arguments to be debated and to compete for acceptance, and I’m sure this happens. But much of the noise from the ‘doubters’ isn’t like this, is it? The main purveyors of dissenting view seem to be a Marc Morano mailing list, a weblog, and the occasional non-peer-reviewed pop-science book.

  14. Jim Birch
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:41 | #14

    Ken, the question is more whether you accept the process of science or not. If the substantial number of trained people apply the scientific method to a problem and come up with a virtually unanimous result that is counter-intuitive to you, who do you trust?

    There’s a point at which it’s just crazy not to trust the experts. AGW has scientific support roughly equivalent to the diabetes II and diet/exercise/stress hypothesis: not completely worked out but pretty solid science. We can’t stop people believing that diabetes is caused by evil spirits but we don’t have to listen to them any more. We don’t give them “equal time” in health policy debates.

  15. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:53 | #15

    “My opponent’s arguments are so stupid that I will not dignify them by an answer” is a common debating ploy.
    Plimer’s views are not stupid – they might (probably will) turn out to be wrong but they are not ridiculous.
    To me, worse and perhaps more dangerous are the people – including some scientists – who exaggerate and mislead about AGW and its consequences. Hansen is one of the worst. Penny Wong has come close to saying that unless Australia adopts her policy we will get more fires like the Victorian ones. That is of course and as I am sure she knows nonsense. Nothing that Australia does will have any measurable effect on anything. We do not matter except as a minor part of a global solution.
    We can expect politicians to mislead and exaggerate – it is why most people’s opinion of politicians is so low – but it is a pity to see such aqn important issue teated in that way, especially by some scientists.
    If AGW scepticism is increasing, and I think it is, it has as much to do with people’s realization that they are being fed exaggerated and misleading scare stories as it has to do with Plimer and the rest.
    A great pity. This is a very important issue and should be dealt with honestly and frankly.

  16. Paul Norton
  17. jquiggin
    July 29th, 2009 at 11:47 | #17

    Plimer’s views as stated in his book are absolutely ridiculous. Among many ludicrous errors, he reproduces discredited graphs from The Great Global Warming Swindle that even the producers of that disgraceful piece of fraud had abandoned.

    You can get chapter and verse, including lots of scathing reviews from scientists who haven’t lost it at Deltoid.

    As Ken Miles says, if there were real sceptics, the debate would be a lot different.

  18. Dave McRae
    July 29th, 2009 at 12:28 | #18

    I love that argument that whatever Australia does it matters not – Minchin, on the last Q&A programme also used this argument.

    I’ve written to the ATO asking that, as my tax receipts is a tiny fraction of the annual tax receipts, much less than our greenhouse contributions as a percentage of global emissions, that I be exempt from paying tax. $20k is just negligible.

    If I’m successful, I’m switching to the delusional side – wish me luck.

  19. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 12:45 | #19

    DMc: Read what I wrote carefully. We should be part of global action on AGW. We should do our bit, however small. What I was rejecting were the suggestions, mostly from politicians, that somehow the Australian climate depended on what we do.

  20. smiths
    July 29th, 2009 at 12:52 | #20

    as i have said repeatedly, this debate is bull****,

    there is an island of plastic floating in the pacific the size of Teaxs,
    fish stocks are collapsing as huge swarms of giant jellyfish grow,
    the great animal migrations are ceasing to exist,
    vast ocean dead zones are increasing constantly,
    toxins are being poured into the air at ever growing rates,
    and yeah, CO2 is increasing

    we have to change the way we are living on this planet fast,

    inaccurate ‘skeptics’ like plimer are either ignorant or corrupt and are obstacles to the continuation of all life on this planet for the next few billion years,
    claims of neutrality at this stage are disgraceful

    you simply cannot have sustainable growth on a finite planet

  21. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 12:59 | #21

    JQ. I accept the critiques of Plimer, though I’d be more comfortable if they had not included Monbiot who embarrasses just about any side he joins by his extremism.
    The reasons there is no good science on the sceptical side is firstly that there is no money to do it – even the energy companies won’t support it – and because it would be a career destroying move. That’s why, I believe, most of the sceptics are either retired or at the end of trheir careers: they have nothing to lose.
    Let me repeat: I accept the IPCC conclusions. Like you, I am not qualified to dispute or even understand them in any detail. So I agree they should be used for policy making. But I am still uncomfortable that anyone disagreeing is torn apart. It goes further than criticism, it’s attack on character and just about everything short of their mother’s morality. That is no healthy for science or anything else.

  22. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:02 | #22

    John Quiggin – I said I was sceptical about both positions. I did not claim neutrality. I have said before, on this blog and elsewhere, that I think human emissions of CO2 are probably warming the planet. I’ve said that as a consequence I’d be willing to support a modest revenue neutral carbon tax. That is not a position of neutrality. However neither is it a position of extreme endorsement for the AGW agenda.

  23. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:05 | #23

    The sad thing is that there are loads of real sceptics out there. They are ones reading up on the scientific lit, coming up with refinements to the theory, running tests and publishing the results so the cycle keeps turning.

    However the delusionist clownshow does its best to over shadow their efforts.

  24. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:17 | #24

    Ken, being a AGW sceptic hardly destroys ones career. It’s actually a pretty good path for a complete nobody to get a load of drivel published in The Australian.

    That many sceptics are dinosaurs, is a fairly common occurence in science were some ossified minds can’t accept that their pet theory has fallen by the wayside.

  25. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:18 | #25

    @Ken

    Sorry Ken, but if your objections above ["attack on character and just about everything short of their mother’s morality"] are a far better description of Plimer’s approach in H&E than those of his critics. They also fit the antics of the business-as-usual advocates rather better than the scientific community.

    I have no problem with anyone’s ideas being torn apart, if it can be done in ways that enlighten, but this is not what ‘skeptics’ are doing. They persistently redux old debunked claims as if they had never been addressed — not to persuade scientists — since scientists know that the claims are discredited but to equip those who don’t know any better with talking points. But for their interest in business and the culture war I might deem them latter day T S Eliots arriving where they started and knowing the place for the first time, but I fear not.

    One wonders, given the far greater scope for thinking the IPCC projections as optimistic, why at least some ‘skeptics’ aren’t saying that the situation could be worse. Why is so called ‘skepticism’ all about the case for doing nothing to disturb existing business interests? Why does it have the same form as the campaign in the late 70s early 80s as the campaiogn to obstruct CFC mitigation?

    And indeed, if you believe the case for policy making has been made out then clearly the tenor of the attacks by the opponents of mitigation invites dismissal of any critique that is not rigorously scientific and evidence based, surely? Have they produced anything fitting this description? Not at all — and quite the opposite. They have dissembled in ways calculated to subvert public support for policy and to cause confusion and distrust — what has been dubbed FUD and slandered honest people in the process.

    The animus comning their way on this basis from those of us who see this as self-serving and intellectually irrational misanthropy is thus hardly surprising.

  26. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:20 | #26

    To me, the most interesting question now is “What is the Plan B?”
    There isn’t any hope that anything will come out of Copenhagen or anything else that will make a significant difference to climate change. No politician is going to inflict the necessary pain on his or her electorate. That is why Rudd is back pedalling and Obama is just delivering rhetorical flourishes and the Indian government saying go jump. Can you imagine Brown (theirs, not ours) having the courage to agree to anything difficult?
    They all know that to have any effect we need to do much much more than change a few lightbulbs and build a few windmills.It would cause significant reductions in standard of living at least in the short term. Even though polls might say that the populace wants something done, they will not accept pain, or anyway, the politicians don’t have the courage to ask them to.
    As several commentators have pointed out, Rudd has shown no signs so far of being willing to make the tough decisions.
    So the political game is, as usual, to appear to do something without doing anything much at all.
    Then, if the world does keep warming, which I accept it will, what do we do to mitigate and live with the effects?
    Expect to hear politicians say “Well, it’s a pity those other countries would not follow my lead but perhaps we can manage ourselves to minimize the effects and perhaps even take advantage of them”

  27. jquiggin
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:21 | #27

    “being an AGW sceptic hardly destroys ones career.” Indeed not, though, as I said it does destroy one’s intellectual reputation to publish tripe like Plimer’s, or to line up with a loon like Inhofe. But the great majority on Inhofe’s list had no intellectual reputation to lose.

  28. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:29 | #28

    “The animus comning their way on this basis from those of us who see this as self-serving and intellectually irrational misanthropy is thus hardly surprising.”

    OK, Fran, if that’s the way you feel. But it can’t really be called self-serving. It is not going to advance anyone’s career. Those who work or have worked in universities know well how difficult it is even to oppose the prevailing fashion in the department, be that Critical Theory or quantitative economics.
    The sceptics are I believe courageous, stupidly wrong perhaps, but nevertheless courageous.

  29. Michael
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:49 | #29

    I find it laughable that “skeptics” describe themselves as “taking the fight to the man”. I’d like to see where any significant action is being taken by the “establishment” to mitigate AGW.

  30. Ubiquity
    July 29th, 2009 at 13:50 | #30

    Ken @25

    This might be next Ken.

    “schemes for reengineering the climate by brute force”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engineering

    Big “stick waving” like this makes me want to give up on the delusionist rant for fear of worse solutions. I think your approach is rational but the divisions are far to deep when political means are our method of implementing climate policies. Soon it may not matter, when a psycopathic delusional billionaire decides to save the world from global warming.

  31. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 14:15 | #31

    Ubiquity, yeah possible, but way way down my worry list.
    I’m surprised The Atlantic published that piece. More sensationalist than it usually is.

  32. Don Arthur
  33. smiths
    July 29th, 2009 at 14:23 | #33

    john, you hold my comments for hours awaiting moderation,
    it makes it hard to be part of a conversation

    i have been reading and commenting for over two years here and have never been warned for bad blog etiquette nor engaged in any arguments or disputes

    is this some kind of permanent probation?

  34. Alice
    July 29th, 2009 at 14:26 | #34

    Smiths – I dont think its the prof – have you upset the C@A lately? Ever been on a commie march back in the 1950s?

  35. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 14:36 | #35

    @Ken #25

    There isn’t any hope that anything will come out of Copenhagen or anything else that will make a significant difference to climate change.

    I disagree. The US seems to be making some progress in coaxing China to a deal everyone can live with. China can’t really have the US do something that devalues the dollar holdings it has there, or disrupts demand for its output, and as a net importer of oil, it will want to keep oil prices low. So although it’s wanting to drive a hard bargain on adjustments, it will eventually ratify. Much the same goes for India as China and India both have a strong interest in getting a global deal compelling enough to stop there areas of the world suffering from serious declines in water shortage, climate change displaced persons etc. Gordon Brown is pushing the idea of a first world fund of 100billion plus to underpin the developing world avoiding following a high carbon path. And the signs these days do point to more aggressive action than was the case a couple of years back. IMO, there is the probability of a general agreement for 25% reduction by 2020 and possibly a little more than that. I note some countries — Scotland for example — are talking well above that into the mid thirties. The thing is that the first 25 is more expensive than the next 25 to implement.

    re#27

    I think in many cases it is self-serving. Many of these people are on the Exxon and friends payroll. Singer has been the recipient of their largesse for years — as well as big tobacco when he was pushing up against restrictions on passive smoking exposure. They have form. many of the critics are geologists — Plimer for example — and we know what most of the extractive industry people think about putting up the price of coal to users.

  36. Steve
    July 29th, 2009 at 15:59 | #36

    @Ken

    I’m having trouble understanding your viewpoint ken. In one post, you are disturbed by climate scientists and politicians exaggerating the perils, and in another post, you are asking for a plan B because you dont think any significant political action and deep cuts will be forthcoming.

    So which is it? Is the alleged exaggeration of climate scientists the bigger worry (because we might end up with too much unwarranted action on climate change), or is the terrible lack of political action an obvious reason for the desperation in the voices of some scientists, and a reason why the exaggeration of delusionists is a far greater problem to worry about?

  37. smiths
    July 29th, 2009 at 16:13 | #37

    actually i think it was swearing, i used the word bullsh*t in my post

    i think that might have been it, sorry for the false accusation john

  38. jquiggin
    July 29th, 2009 at 16:22 | #38

    To confirm, smiths, coarse language is automoderated, but as long as you avoid that (and any of the forbidden WordPress words I can’t control, such as soCI@LISm) your comments should appear immediately.

  39. Alice
    July 29th, 2009 at 16:29 | #39

    What other words apart from swearing are forbidden on WordPress?

  40. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 16:32 | #40

    Good questions, Steve. I was making two separate but related points.
    My concerns about exaggerations are that many people come to the conclusion that you can’t trust politicians to tell the truth (probably generally believed, anyway) and I think it would harm science and the standing of scientists generally for them to behave like politicians. Not a generally accepted belief, but I think science should be value free:”This is how we see things. It’s up to you what you do with it”.
    I don’t believe that exaggerations will lead to too much action. The contrary in fact. Reading (to take a couple of extreme examples) Hansen and Monbiot people will and do say “it can’t be that bad”. I would not want Monbiot on my side in any fight.
    I don’t believe the world will agree on any deep and serious cuts. We will see if I am right.
    The delusionists, as you call them, don’t worry me. They have pretty well no political influence (yes, I know Fielding, but he isn’t the obstacle, the Opposition is and they will cave) and as I have said I admire anyone with the courage to oppose received religion.

  41. smiths
    July 29th, 2009 at 16:57 | #41

    tHat 1s @bs0lut3ly funk1n ridiclious,

    i bet capitalism gets through alright

  42. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 17:05 | #42

    @Ken

    Fielding [...] and as I have said I admire anyone with the courage to oppose received religion.

    You have smuggled in here something straight from the business-as-usual playbook — that the policy which you claim to endorse is “received religion”. This is simply the maundering of the late Michael Crichton. It is of course a piece of ad hominem directed at scientists — an assertion that their inferences are not based on rigorous science but rather, derive from something as groundless as the latest religious fashion, and which anyone can oppose with equal merit. Earlier, you claimed you had no means of assessing the science and accepted it — whereas now you imply positively that you can declare it to be unscientific and a received religion. Which is it? Are you saying that you too lack the courage to oppose received relgion and admire Fielding for the “courage” you lack? The choice of adjective too gives away the game you are playing.

    “Received” here is a populist cri de coeur — an attempt to delegitimse an idea by placing social distance between ordinary folk who are possessed of authenticity and its source in the exotic insight of intellectual or political elites.

    One might add that the mainstream science lacks decisive elements of a religion “received” or otherwise. There is no assertion of metaphysical causality or any non-physical entity or adduction of concept from outside measurable data.

  43. rog
    July 29th, 2009 at 17:24 | #43

    This whole debate has left the rational a long time ago. A consensus is not a scientific term, if there is anything to prove there should be a meta analysis and that should be subject to scrutiny.

    Even the best meta analysis is subject to publication bias.

    And the use of colourful emotive terms such as “delusional” might suffice within tribal dialect but it is hardly evidence of science.

  44. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 17:30 | #44

    Oh, alright, strike “received religion” replace with “generally accepted view” or something.
    I don’t admire Fielding or any politician. I do admire scientists who have the courage to swim against the prevailing tide.
    Surely you would worry if any sets of beliefs: quantum physics or evolution by natural selection or Keynesian economic theory (all of which I accept, by the way) would become so “received” as the truth that it is not legitimate to challenge them?
    Golly, I’m done.

  45. Pterosaur
    July 29th, 2009 at 17:31 | #45

    rog

    “if there is anything to prove there should be a meta analysis and that should be subject to scrutiny. ”

    I think that might have been called the IPCC report – perhaps you are unaware of its existence ?

  46. July 29th, 2009 at 17:53 | #46

    2009 and wow we are stilling having a debate about whether or not the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropomorphic or not. To the doubters, where do they think the tonnes of carbon released every day by our consumption of fossil fuels go? These rather scarey ppl and other like minded individuals seem to think a dramatic shift in weather patterns in a world of 6 billion plus is ok.

    From my very limited perspective I am extremely sceptical about the capacity to mitigate worldwide crop failures or the outbreak of more tropical diseases. I would love to be wrong and I’m sure most people hope like hell that the ice caps don’t melt but based on the amount of evidence supporting global warming from carbon emissions, you really have to wonder why we are still having these sorts of debates and why we aren’t taking some serious action. There can’t be that many people with shares in oil and coal surely?

  47. jquiggin
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:01 | #47

    “Surely you would worry if any sets of beliefs: quantum physics or evolution by natural selection or Keynesian economic theory (all of which I accept, by the way) would become so “received” as the truth that it is not legitimate to challenge them?”

    There’s no problem challenging any of these views on the basis of scientific research, and Keynesian economics was subject to some fairly successful challenges in the 60s and 70s. But challenging them on the basis of crank monetary or physics theories, creationism or just plain ideological hackery is not legitimate. The vast majority of “sceptics” on climate change are in the latter class.

  48. smiths
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:18 | #48

    that would be these world crop failures

    Bulgarian farmers had harvested around 30% of the nation’s wheat crop … around 20% lower than last season’s output.
    Around 92% of the nation’s barley has been cut … 16% down on last year’s crop of 900,000 MT.

    Brazil, the world’s third largest wheat importer, bought 51,000 MT of US wheat last week, that’s more US wheat than it bought in the entire first six months of the year … Brazil’s normal favoured wheat supplier is Argentina, but they of course have had a disastrous 2008 crop

    The President of Agrarian Chamber of Ukraine, says that the harvest will only produce 35 MMT of grain this season. [35 percent less than last year]

    According to the Russian Agricultural Ministry 3.3 million hectares of the nation’s spring crops have been badly damaged by drought.

    The Spanish agriculture ministry has revised down this year’s wheat and barley production estimates … Wheat output (excluding durum) is now projected 32% lower this year … This season’s barley crop is now forecast at 7.5 MMT, compared to the previous forecast of 8.6 MMT, which is 33% down from the 11.3 MMT harvested last year.

    The likelihood of weak monsoon rains, crucial for kharif output in India, is causing great worry to farmers, media and policymakers. Rainfall is improving but three-fourth of the country has so far received scanty or deficient rains. The key foodgrain producing states — Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, UP, MP and Himachal Pradesh — are worst hit. The situation has become so bad that MP sought to be declared a drought affected state …
    India warned Friday that patchy monsoon rains were threatening its lifeline rice crop and said it would ban food exports as part of a plan to prevent any crisis.

    More than a million hectares of Romanian wheat and rye have already been damaged by drought as the country braces itself for a forecast very dry June.

    Early estimates for grain production in the state of Western Australia in 2009 are for output of 8-11 MMT, between 10-35% lower than the 12.3 MMT produced last year, according to the region’s monopoly grain storage facility Cooperative Bulk Handling.

    In what is becoming a familiar weekly ritual the Buenos Aires Grain Exchange has revised down its 2009 soybean crop estimate for Argentina to 32.0 MMT from 32.2 MMT a week earlier … That’s a reduction of 30.7% on last year and 36% down on the 50 MMT originally hoped for this season.

    but hey, who needs food right, we can eat 1′s and 0′s eh?

  49. Joseph Clark
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:18 | #49

    JQ,
    Do you think that there are any cranks etc on the pro AGW side? I would feel a lot more comfortable if I saw AGWers challenging the more implausible and unsubstantiated claims from their own side. When they don’t I draw inferences about how critically they evaluate the rest of the evidence.

  50. Tony G
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:34 | #50

    Fran Barlow @ 11 said;

    but the Carbon 12 isotope attribute clearly distinguishes this CO2 from CO2 that is part of fluxes

    Considering Carbon-12 is the most abundant of the two stable isotopes of the element carbon, accounting for 98.89% of carbon; It’s hard to believe it can even murkily distinguish one bit of the 98.89% of carbon from the other 98.89%.

    And

    ;

    the increase in global temperatures over pre-industrial temperatures –(0.74degC)

    Considering the age of the pre-industrial Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) You’d think you would be able to find that there were many periods in pre-industrial times when the temperature was (0.74degC) more than it is now. (if you cant find a pre-industrial period when the earth was hotter than it is now you are lying)

    As I said, one fact will dispel the AGW conspiracy theory. We are only asking for one; one is not to much to ask for, just one fact that categorical proves that the increase in carbon IS warming the planet?

    @6 Sorry for sounding like Graeme Bird, I must have been reading Jennifer’s blog to much.

  51. July 29th, 2009 at 18:35 | #51

    @smiths
    I think the plan is to substitute greenbacks for flour and corn, mash em up nice and fine, wrap it in plastic and give it a name…maybe Soylent Green ?

  52. rog
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:36 | #52

    @Pterosaur

    Pterosaur, are you saying that the IPCC report is a meta-analysis?

  53. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:39 | #53

    @rog
    #43

    While consensus does not offer scientific validation a for a hypothesis it is a starting point for those parts of science that are germane to the formation of public policy, for the simple and obvious reason that basing policy on things that are still the matter of serious controversy is reckless.

    There’s a consensus for example, about the ways in which epidemics grow within populations and good policy aims to apply the insights of well-attested science in managing these threats. This is where we are with current policy on climate change until someone can show through rigorous collection of pertinent data and sound modelling of the known system that some other hypothesis might found better measures.

    No system — not even the best science — can produce certainty or “truth”. Good science can help you avoid dealing irrationally or suboptimally with public goods however.

  54. rog
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:48 | #54

    In fact, the IPCC report in part relies an other meta-analyses. Other scientists (or deluded cranks, depending on how you feel) have conducted meta analysis on published studies of greenhouse abatement and found that generally accepted figures are in error and under estimate the costs. Many of the published studies were found to be subject to the “scientific forum in which the study was developed.”

    If you continue to use the term “delusional” you continue to affirm your bias.

  55. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 18:50 | #55

    Of course, consensus plays a role in science.

    If you come up with a theory, you must gather evidence, test your theories and convince other scientists that your theory is better than the existing theories.

    The big problem is that AGW sceptics miss all of the above steps.

  56. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:09 | #56

    Do you think that there are any cranks etc on the pro AGW side? I would feel a lot more comfortable if I saw AGWers challenging the more implausible and unsubstantiated claims from their own side. When they don’t I draw inferences about how critically they evaluate the rest of the evidence.

    Of course there are cranks on the AGW side.

    The truly crazy tend to be ignored. While they may have same standard of evidence as AGW sceptics, they tend to be ignored by pretty much everyone.

    More frequently, statements about the effects of GW go far beyond what the science says. These are frequently criticized. Real Climate, for example, has criticized Tim Flannary on a number of occasions (and gave Weathers Makers a negative review). Climate scientists (and bloggers) James Annan and William Connolley have done a pretty good job at smacking down some rubbish. On a personal note (and I certainly don’t mean to put myself in the same category of the above people), I’ve corrected some over the top statements on LP.

  57. philip travers
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:18 | #57

    PT, please try to write something coherent next time, and no more than 100 words

  58. NEILC
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:19 | #58

    The AGW “debate” is characterised by half-truths & inaccurate assertions on both sides. Just to highlight one of them, the comment above “a minority so tiny that even a list of 650 has to be padded out with economists, retired historians, weathercasters and lots of cranks” is incorrect. There is a web-based petition of more than 31,000 US scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.” Try googling it.

  59. Ken
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:24 | #59

    JQ: What you are saying sounds like “I believe in free speech, but this is going to far…” I am not qualified to say that the sceptics are writing nonsense and, frankly, I doubt that you are. We both accept the weight of opinion from scientists who know more about the subject than you and I do.
    The difference between us is that I am glad to see some who do not accept the majority view and keep challenging it. In all disciplines there is a great tradition of the ratbag who did not accept the prevailing wisdom. Many died as ratbags but we should still be glad that they were who they were. In your field, would you be happy if Marx (a noted ratbag) had never spent all that time in the British Museum?

  60. Tony G
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:36 | #60

    test

  61. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:41 | #61

    What you are saying sounds like “I believe in free speech, but this is going to far…” I am not qualified to say that the sceptics are writing nonsense and, frankly, I doubt that you are. We both accept the weight of opinion from scientists who know more about the subject than you and I do.

    There is absolutely nothing in JQ’s comments that support your assertion.

    While you certainly aren’t qualified to make an informed judgment on the subject, there are plenty of people and organizations that are.

    Here is a big list.

    Indeed, the only scientific organization to make a statement opposing the scientific basis (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) was forced to scrap it because of a revolt by their membership.

  62. July 29th, 2009 at 19:43 | #62

    I am surprised that Frank Milne was silly enough to add his name to this list.

  63. Ken Miles
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:44 | #63

    There is a web-based petition of more than 31,000 US scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.

    That petition is just one more reason as too why AGW sceptics are utter jokes.

    However, humor me, from those 31,000 “scientists” how many scientific publications on climate change have been produced?

  64. jquiggin
    July 29th, 2009 at 19:55 | #64

    Ken, there’s no free speech issue here. I’m using my free speech rights to say that the alleged sceptics are (at best) talking nonsense and (in many cases) telling lies for cash or party promotion. You don’t need to be a climate science expert to be able to determine the facts about people like Singer, Seitz, Milloy, Durkin, and so on (Google them).

    NeilC, I’ve not only Googled the Oregon petition, it’s been demolished on this blog so many times as to be a standing joke. Why don’t you Google “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” to see the kind of loons you’re relying on. Or search this site, and you’ll find plenty. The fact that this kind of nonsense keeps on getting served up is evidence of the extent to which climate delusionism is based on wishful thinking and an unwillingess to face inconvenient truths.

  65. Alice
    July 29th, 2009 at 20:04 | #65

    @jquiggin
    JQ its also evidence of how media owners have a vested interest in distorting facts (one Rupert Mudoch to be precise who keeps serving up BS).

  66. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 20:05 | #66

    @Ken Miles

    And one may add, Ken Miles, that the reason that those favouring mitigation who make unsound claims tend not to be heard about is precisely because, unlike their counterparts opposing mitigation there is no interest group for such people to serve.

    That too tells a story.

  67. Alice
    July 29th, 2009 at 20:08 | #67

    @jquiggin
    Because he is a sorry sad extremist ultra conservative who looks after the interests of his business advertisers…on climate change his “news” isnt “news” – its propaganda to serve Murodchs short term business interests…and traditional news is dying, making him and his editors and his directors ever more desperate (such that they will entertain any garbage as long as its sensational).
    No Kerry Packer even in Rupert Murdoch. No love for real “news” – just love for money. He aint a true media barons bootlace.

  68. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 29th, 2009 at 20:50 | #68

    Ken, according to dear Harry Clarke ‘The denialists do like to recycle half-truths’.

  69. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 29th, 2009 at 21:04 | #69

    Ken, dear Harry Clarke also thinks ‘Malcolm Turnbull’s statement on the proposed ETS has to be partly understood as a political act seeking to encourage anti-science fruitcakes in the Coalition to learn to live with an ETS’.

  70. Tony G
    July 29th, 2009 at 21:10 | #70

    Fran Barlow @ 11 said;

    but the Carbon 12 isotope attribute clearly distinguishes this CO2 from CO2 that is part of fluxes

    Considering Carbon-12 is the most abundant of the two stable isotopes of the element carbon, accounting for 98.89% of carbon; It’s hard to believe it can even murkily distinguish one bit of the 98.89% of carbon from the other 98.89%.

    And

    ;

    the increase in global temperatures over pre-industrial temperatures –(0.74degC)

    Considering the age of the pre-industrial Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) You’d think you would be able to find that there were many periods in pre-industrial times when the temperature was (0.74degC) more than it is now. (if you cant find a pre-industrial period when the earth was hotter than it is now you are lying)

    As I said, one fact will dispel the AGW conspiracy theory. We are only asking for one; one is not too much to ask for, just one fact that categorical proves that the increase in carbon IS warming the planet. If you come up with that one fact I will be converted to your faith.

    @6 Sorry for sounding like Graham Byrd, I must have been reading Jennifer’s blog to much.

  71. Fran Barlow
    July 29th, 2009 at 22:00 | #71

    @Tony G

    As I said, one fact will dispel the AGW conspiracy theory. We are only asking for one; one is not too much to ask for, just one fact that categorical proves that the increase in carbon IS warming the planet. If you come up with that one fact I will be converted to your faith.

    I’m not seeking your “conversion”. You can have your faith as it seems dear to you. You have all the facts you need but you push them away as offensive. Your kind a better suited to your delusion, for where ignorance is bliss, ’tis indeed folly to be wise.

    Fran

  72. Ernestine Gross
    July 29th, 2009 at 22:07 | #72

    JQ, The document you have linked under the name “Senator James Inhofe’s list, does not contain any signatures from any of the many names listed. Further, having skimmed through several pages, I noticed the quotes, assuming they are authentic, span a very wide range of questions and allowing many different interpretations, particularly out of context of the original.

    Most of the time I very much like your headers. On this ocasion I’d like to offer an alternative: Senator James Inhofe’s efforts to rob economists of their ‘on the one hand and on the other hand’ stereotype.

    I should think that nothing can be concluded from Senator James Inhofe’s list.

  73. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 29th, 2009 at 22:10 | #73

    Ken, if I’m not mistaken Harry Clarke’s definition of a denialist is a fruitcake.

  74. Tony G
    July 29th, 2009 at 22:57 | #74

    ignorance is bliss,

    especially if you lack the proof that the increase in carbon is actually warming the planet and you want to ‘believe’ that it is.

    Antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of AGW ideology who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.

    One does not deny the existence of Climate Change and AGW but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. Unfortunatly for the AGW faithful my convictions are of this world and its facts; come up with some so I can share your ‘beliefs’ .

  75. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2009 at 01:36 | #75

    I wonder what tony G thinks of Inhofe’s claim that burning oil and gas doesn’t cause pollution?

    “People complain that we are buying — importing from the Middle East — oil and gas. And then they find out that we have it all right here. We don’t have to do that. If their argument there is “Well, we don’t want to use oil and gas because we think it pollutes” — which it doesn’t — but if that’s their argument, then why are we willing to import it from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East?”

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/oil-gas-dont-pollute-inhofe.php

    and as others have said, there’s no need to convert you Tony, you’re quite welcome to join the Flat Earthers; urine-drinkers’ creationists, tinfoil-hat wearers, Trotskyites and UFOlogists in spouting your irrelevant nonsense.

  76. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 30th, 2009 at 09:32 | #76

    Crikey John, now we know what is the real motive behind the fruitcakes who claim ‘crazy uncle’ is intelligent. Watch your back Malcolm for the neo-conservative illywackers are on the march.

  77. snuh
    July 30th, 2009 at 09:32 | #77

    Just to highlight one of them, the comment above “a minority so tiny that even a list of 650 has to be padded out with economists, retired historians, weathercasters and lots of cranks” is incorrect. There is a web-based petition of more than 31,000 US scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”

    NEILC, your claim would in no way contradict john’s claim, even if your claim were true (which it isn’t).

  78. Tony G
    July 30th, 2009 at 10:28 | #78

    Ian, an esoteric cult made up ‘supposedly’ of the ‘majority’ of scientists and a posse of self proclaimed ‘intelligent’ intellectuals, spruiking a ‘theory’ about AGW does not prove it exists.

    Facts do.

    Ian the ‘lowly’ masses who don’t feel any warmer have given up trying to get your esoteric cult to provide one, just one real world experiment that even ‘shows’ that carbon level changes correlates with temperature changes.

    As the esoteric cult refuses or can’t provide evidence of causation as requested we will move on to temperature.

    It has been spruiked here by the ones self deemed to be intelligent enough to form a esoteric cult on AGW, that in recent times mankind has single handily;

    increased global temperatures over pre-industrial temperatures

    As stated above, Taking a handful of decades out of the last 4.54 billion years and professing to know to within an accuracy of 0.74degC how temperatures behaved over that period is a joke; can you please produce evidence that it is not a joke?

    When the ‘lowly’ masses stop freezing their balls off they might start ‘believing’ your cult.

  79. Ikonoclast
    July 30th, 2009 at 10:37 | #79

    I’m not sure if it is worth stirring up the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-democratic, antedeluvian delusionists any more. They are beyond the reach of all rational and scientific debate. They are blind to empirical evidence. They do not understand science and scientific method. They are incapable of logical reasoning.

    I suspect that about a third of them are so ill-educated and so entrenched in anti-intellectual “thinking” that they are now ineducable. Another third are probably clinically dull or clinically deranged (and it’s not their fault, it’s just sad) with limited reality checking ability in all areas of their lives. The final third are the brainwashed religious or right wing fundamentalists or those who actually brainwash them.

    A sub-group of the religious and corporate brainwashers who peddle all this delusional nonsense are in fact deliberate hoaxers who do not believe their own lies but peddle them for malicious purposes or financial gain.

    You can’t reason with people who can’t or won’t reason. It’s a waste of time. We have to get on with making the changes to the energy system and better educating the next generation.

  80. Ikonoclast
    July 30th, 2009 at 10:43 | #80

    On the other hand maybe we need tireless fighters for scientific investigations and conclusions, like JQ, who will deal a 100 variations and fabrications of the same nonsense by clearly pointing out 100 times why it’s nonsense. I’m afraid I just don’t have the patience for that. I’m prepared to wait for the real world evidence to swamp the delusionists (literally in some cases).

  81. Ikonoclast
    July 30th, 2009 at 10:44 | #81

    *deal with

  82. James
    July 30th, 2009 at 10:46 | #82

    Tony G: The definition of “esoteric” is “hidden”. Absolutely nothing, including the data, the scientific papers, the budgets, the reporting process, the personnel, etc of all the science that makes up the consensus case is hidden. I suspect you think “esoteric” means “beyond my comprehension”. I suggest you go and read some of the actual scientific literature. If you’re incapable of that, then STFU and go back to school, and try to learn something this time.
    JQ, I thought it was no longer your policy to allow these useless troll debates.

  83. Tony G
    July 30th, 2009 at 10:48 | #83

    Iko get of the esoterical horse.

    All that is needed is simple answer to a simple question, obviously no one here can produce one.

  84. smiths
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:06 | #84

    tony g,
    heres a couple of simple ones back …

    what gases are released when fossil fuels are burnt?
    where do they go?
    what is the result?

  85. Tony G
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:13 | #85

    smiths

    All that is needed is simple answer to a simple question, obviously no one here can produce one.
    People who are self proclaimed followers of the abovementioned esoteric cult sure do have thick skulls.

  86. Ikonoclast
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:35 | #86

    Tony G, all your questions have been answered many times before by myself and other bloggers posting very cogent arguments, links to IPCC and other science summaries, undergrad text book titles on the relevant physics underpinning climate research and gigabytes of authentic empirical data. You either can’t remember new information or you can’t absorb it in any systematic way. Have you thought about getting some cognitive function tests done mate? You may have a treatable condition.

  87. Hal9000
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:43 | #87

    Tony G, you persist in claiming AGW is an esoteric cult. Here’s the argument, as laid out at Deltoid blog by Barton Paul Levenson:

    1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
    2. Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling 1958, 1960, etc.).
    3. Therefore (1, 2) the Earth’s temperature should be rising.
    4. The Earth’s temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, RSS, UAH, etc., etc.).
    5. Therefore (1, 2, 3) the increased temperatures should relate closely to the carbon dioxide level.
    6. The correlation between NASA GISS temperature anomalies and ln CO2 is r = 0.87 for 1880-2007 (http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html).
    7. The new carbon dioxide is primarily from fossil fuel burning (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess 1957).
    8. Therefore the global warming taking place is anthropogenic.

    Which of the above points do you dispute?

  88. Tony G
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:45 | #88

    Yes yes all very nice info Ico,

    But, can you provide just one real world experiment that ’demonstrates’ that carbon level changes correlates with temperature changes (We don’t care how big all small the experiment is). It needs to be demonstrate that AGW is real to other people besides the converted ‘esoteric cult’.

  89. Tony G
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:47 | #89

    If we can replicate that fundemental we are on our way to proving causation.

  90. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 30th, 2009 at 11:55 | #90

    Tell me Tony G, every time you burp & phart does it increase or decrease greenhouse gases?

  91. jquiggin
    July 30th, 2009 at 12:03 | #91

    “It needs to be demonstrate that AGW is real to other people besides the converted ‘esoteric cult’.”

    I take it by this you mean all the world’s major scientific bodies.

    I encourage Tony G to comment more, because he reveals so fully the parallel-universe thinking in which scientists are cast as religious believers, while people like Inhofe who base their crackpot science on fundamentalist religion and/or ideology are treated as authorities.

    Of course, if you are in the same parallel universe as Tony, it all makes sense

  92. Fran Barlow
    July 30th, 2009 at 12:18 | #92

    For those tiring of doing the same old dance, read Alex Higgins

  93. Ikonoclast
    July 30th, 2009 at 12:27 | #93

    Tony G is engaged in childish gainsaying. He is not worth responding to. His behaviour is the mental equivalent of stopping his ears and saying “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you.” I think he’s winding us up actually. He doesn’t care one way or the other about the argument. If he cared, he’d attempt to use his brain.

  94. James
    July 30th, 2009 at 12:34 | #94

    By asking for “a real world experiment” on his terms, as far as I can tell Tony is basically asking for us either to a) create an entire planet that looks just the same as earth and pump its atmosphere full of carbon dioxide so we can watch it warm up or b) Continue to emit CO2 and further warm this planet to a possibly irreversible extent, just to prove to him that it can be done.
    Tony, if you have some other definition of the “experiment” it would take to satisfy you, let’s hear it. As has been pointed out, the experiments showing CO2′s ability to trap heat were first published in 1859 and have been verified many times since…

  95. Ikonoclast
    July 30th, 2009 at 13:09 | #95

    An AGW Sceptic Position Which I Could Respect

    For the sake of the exercise, I thought I would post an AGW sceptic position which I could at least respect. I do not hold this position by the way. This position could (possibly) be held without denying clear-cut science and the empirical data. The propositions up to five are scientifically supportable. Proposition six is an hypothesis which would need more research.

    1. Currently the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity.
    2. This activity consists in the main of burning carbon based fuels and deforestation activities.
    3. Global warming does indeed correlate with increased CO2 and greenhouse gas levels.
    4. With respect to the entire geological record of earth, this greenhouse gas release is not unique in the sense that (approximately) equally large and rapid releases have been caused in the past, albeit through geological processes such as volcanism.
    5. The earth’s atmosphere and climate has not been permanently shifted away from attaining or reattaining what we might now call the Holocene optimum.
    6. This indicates the earth’s climate system and associated systems comprise a far more robust homeostatic system than the IPCC and others seem to postulate.
    7. More research is required to investigate and/or test this hypothesis.
    8. However, we need also to be aware that interim perturbations to climate and associated systems could be dramatic by human standards having dramatic civilizational effects and that any natural return to the Holocene climate optimum may take something in the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
    9. Therefore, we agree with the more orthodox climate position that we need to proceed cautiously in this matter and with a view to risk minimisation at a demonstrably affordable cost.
    10. Furthermore, we agree that earth’s fossil fuels are finite in quantity (peak oil already having occurred for example) as indeed are nuclear fuels. Therefore, alternative power sources which are renewable and largely greenhouse gas neutral, should researched and implemented in a the most expeditious manner for reasons of energy security and indeed global human security.

    Anything less than the above position, I simply cannot respect as it cannot arise out any defensible scientific and risk management analysis.

  96. Chris O’Neill
    July 30th, 2009 at 13:11 | #96

    Tony G:

    As I said, one fact will dispel the AGW conspiracy theory.

    Sometimes, when I feel like some idle amusement, I go to a science denial website and write something like:

    “AGW is the biggest conspiracy of all time. It was begun more than 100 years ago by the likes of Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius who knew that they could create opportunities for research grants more than 100 years in the future by creating a false theory.”

    I don’t really need to write things like that when people like Tony G do it anyway. What a bunch of idiots.

  97. Jim Birch
    July 30th, 2009 at 14:14 | #97

    All that is needed is [a] simple answer to a simple question

    Thanks Tony,

    What a clot I’ve been: It IS a simple answer to a simple question. All we have to do is send someone out to look at the global thermometer and check the global temperature. Then check the printout and we should get the simple record of global temperature since the earth started, then, and this is good, read down the pages to the CO2 component of the temperature over time. But then, and this is the best bit, just simply flip the switch across and run the thing in reverse and we can get a read out of the future CO2 component of temperature. How easy is that?!

    And haven’t those parasites in the IPCC got a lot of explaining to do. All those years endlessly collating and reviewing of papers, all from supposedly reputable journals. Reputable, my foot! Snouts in the trough, the lot of them. But, of course, the real enemy isn’t the governments and public servants who got the IPCC up, or the journals that published the papers: it’s those dirty scientists. Some of them are obviously pretty bright, with all those letters after their names, not to mention their ability to to wheedle themselves into positions of power in the best research institutions in the world with all this obtuse talk of uncertainties, complex processes, data collection methodologies, ocean-atmosphere interaction theories, modelling techniques, and the like. All of which needed lots of years and years of so-called “work” at outrageous salaries – no doubt assisted by an army of publicly-funded attractive young assistants – before they could even begin to get a handle on this problem. They’ve kept us from the simple answer to the simple problem for years and now they might now find the shoe is on the other foot. Big time. Not to mention just about every other technically educated person on the planet who has point-blank refused to acknowledge the palpable simplicity of the AGW question.

    But we must reserve our purest and most toxic venom for those supreme obfusicators in this epic charade: the people who actually confessed that it was a simple answer to a simple problem, easily sorted without overpaid idiots with PhDs wasting their own and everyone else’s time in expensive research institutions. I refer, of course, to the anti-AGW mob. Having their privy knowledge, these scoundrels could have shown just a little bit of public-spiritedness by sharing what they knew, in a way we could all understand, and put this simple problem to bed for once and for all. Did they? No, they came out with cleverly-transparent junk science, whacko conspiracy theories, smarmy attacks on Al Gore, and even some unintelligible gibberish, just to keep the whole thing going for as long as possible. I still ask myself: What was possibly in it for them? Half of them weren’t even paid to do it.

    Anyway, as Mum said: forgive and forget, even when it hurts! Please post the location of the global thermometer and instructions on doing the future readout bit and we’ll get down there with a highlighter, grab the printout and mark the future CO2 component bit and have this sorry mess sorted by next week. A lot of rent-seeking climate modellers and enviro-bludgers will be getting the real jobs real soon (mowing lawns, haha.) Bob’s your uncle. Simple.

  98. Cancer Man
    July 30th, 2009 at 14:59 | #98

    The thing is, Tony G, you may be dimly aware that there is an AGW conspiracy, but you have no idea how deep the conspiracy really goes.

    What dupes like you don’t get is that, not only is AGW a conspiracy, but AGW denialism is itself part of the conspiracy.

    Jen Marohasy, the IPA, the Oz, Ian Plimer etc – they’re all in on it. They’re being paid by the IPCC to cook up a bogus ‘skeptic’ movement in order to bring trouble makers out of the woodwork and identify ‘em so they can be dealt with later on. It’s a false flag operation.

    Why do you think their comments threads are so unmoderated – they need to get commenters to express themselves in full, so they can identify they key troublemakers (we call ‘em ‘drones’) through their IP numbers. C’mon, you know it’s easy to track down someone’s identity and location from an IP address – the CIA does it every day. Whothehelldyouthink the CIA works for these days, anyway? The IPCC, dummy. And you’re on the list, baby. Jen told me so herself. So did Ian.

    Graeme Bird is in on it, too – I’ve discussed it with him myself at a meeting whose location and purpose I cannot reveal. Fact of the matter, Tone, is this: You. are. the. only. one. who. is not. in. on. it.

  99. Tim Macknay (aka Tim M)
    July 30th, 2009 at 15:06 | #99

    Sorry, Prof Q. Just realised I inadvertantly violated the sock puppet rule, which is probably why my last comment is in moderation. I was trying to be funny – should probably think aobut that a little more before I hit ‘submit’.

  100. Pedro
    July 30th, 2009 at 15:40 | #100

    Well, if denialism is some pointless and silly and the science so settled, why would scientists fabricate the hockey-stick, cause that’s essentially what happened? I always worry about a proposition when people start telling lies about it.

Comment pages
1 2 6405
Comments are closed.