While Australia has punched a little below its weight in terms of the number of climate change delusionists we have produced, we’re at world’s best practice as far as loopiness as concerned. Our leading delusionist group is the Lavoisier Institute which has, among other things
* Used the work of (now-deceased) astrologer Theodor Landscheidtas the basis for criticism of the IPCC
* Compared the Kyoto Protocol to the attempted Japanese invasion of Australia in 1942(1)
The Lavoiser team got together at Parliament House in Canberra to launch a book by rightwing eminence grise Ray Evans called “Nine Facts about Climate Change”.
As I’ve said before, I don’t plan to bother refuting this stuff any more, but taavi does garbage pickup. I particularly liked the perpetual motion machine in Fact 2.
1. Of course, the official rightwing line now claims that the invasion threat was itself a myth cooked up by notorious appeaser John Curtin.
John Quiggin 
Snuh: Forgot to add: (this is not true in Australia) provided that the international treaty is converted into domestic law
Richard, tho’ like you, I’m not an expert on international law, I would be surprised. Australia floughts a good deal of protocols/treaties to which it is a party with no apparent (legal) ill effects.
That said, there has been recent reports that the government has scoped the increases in energy costs which may encourage the reductions required to come in under the Kyoto targets they have not ratified but maintain they will meet. Unconfirmed by the government themselves.
As an aside – has anyone calculated the range of estimates for Kyoto in $/tonne CO2 with the modern economy (i.e. recent higher energy demand and GDP than has been previously modelled)?
Richard, I’m unclear whether you’re talking about the EU or its member countries. Either way, the impact of Kyoto on Australia sovereignty is trivial compared to that of the EU on its member countries.
On ths point, there is, as I’m sure you know, a species of Euro”sceptic” (that word again!) who like to make comparisons with World War II, for example this guy who says
I had assumed such rhetoric was self-evidently loopy, but you don’t appear to find the same trope problematic in Lavoisier’s case, so I’d be interested in your thoughts on this guy.
Finally, while I’m not a constitutional lawyer, I think your advice is incorrect in several respects. First, while ratification would give the Commonwealth government power to pass laws that might otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the states, it doesn’t require the passage of any law. Second, while some legislation would probably be required to do things like create markets for emissions and so on, it would be highly unusual for the government to pass a law requiring itself to ensure particular policy targets were achieved. Third, even if such a law existed, it’s unlikely any litigant would have standing to enforce it.
The political realities of combating greenhouse gases whilst people maintain their standard of living is problematic. Observa is not prepared to give Mike Rann any credit for trying to provide practical solutions which don’t just rely on a gas fired power plant but also on wind power, introducing standards for housing to reduce the reliance on air conditioning and support for sustainable building projects to provide prototypes for the future to replace the McMansions that have been so popular in recent years. Why would Mike Rann pay any heed to someone like Observa? – there will never be any concession by Observa that Mike Rann has anything right.
Whilst there is a general acceptance of Global Warming there is no guarantee that public opinion won’t shift again – especially as there is so much call for “balance” in the ABC media by the Howard government which means that even very silly propositions can get a lot of air time. This then flows over into the sensationalist popular media. Thus whilst the denialists are on the back foot, like the creationists they keep on coming back, and marketing their faith based propaganda.
The political reality dictates what is possible and can lead to poor decisions if they are popular enough with the punters. Instead of attacking those who are trying to find solutions Observa should put forward some solutions. There is no one solution to the problem as Mr Howard suggests with his nuclear power plants. The downsides are too many including the risks of radio activity and terrorism.
Mr Rann did not make South Australia dependent on coal fired power stations and as a smaller state there isn’t the money to replace them in the short term. It may not be enough but at least there is a measurable goal and at least there are lessons that can be learnt by other states and the federal government.
The parallels with the Japanese invasion of Australia in 1942 is that Australians believed that the Japanese wanted to invade and take over – with some clear evidence to support this view. Australians took action and won. There is no reason to think that Australians cannot do the same with global warming if they have governments that put them and the planet first whilst working cooperatively with overseas allies. The Australians and their allies didn’t win every battle but they learned from their mistakes and kept on working. Luckily they didn’t give up after pig iron Bob had sold the metals that came back to Australian troops as bullets and bombs. They also didn’t give up when the Singapore strategy went so wrong.
Australia can only avert disaster by looking for intelligent solutions. The denialists make this harder by diverting attention from developing solutions to arguing that there is a problem.
John Q: You’re ducking the point. My source of info is someone very close to the government, and this person claims that environmental law is binding in Australia. If this is not true, then Australia could have signed, ratified and converted the Kyoto Protocol without a loss of sovereignty, and Lavoisier is wrong and my point is moot.
(I know it is tempting to start with the premise that Lavoisier is wrong and from that deduce that environmental law is non-binding in Australia.)
The same person argues that the asperational nature of EU environmental law was a reason for Australia not to ratify Kyoto. Various people close to the previous, current and future US administration say the same thing (about US ratification, not Australian ratification). I deduce from that that Australian and US law are similar in this regard, but that is an assertion, not a fact. In the US, one can for sure sue the government for not implementation the law, and one would likely win.
I know next to nothing about Australia.
I’ve heard this point made in relation to the US, but I’m confident it’s not true in Australia at least as regards signing and ratifying (don’t know what “converted” means in this context). Of course, if the Parliament passes a law it’s binding (except that, as I mentioned, you have to have standing to engage in legal action). I find it hard to believe that laws in the EU are not binding – can you explain what you mean by this?
And, given that, as you say, you know next to nothing about Australia, I reluctantly have to tell you that “people very close to the government” in Australia are often ill-informed and occasionally tell big porkies. Coming from the EU, as you do, you’ll find this hard to believe, I’m sure. However, as any of my Australian readers will tell you, it’s sad but true.
Finally, I’m still keen to hear your thoughts on our “sceptic” friend
“Various people close to the … future US administration”
This would have to be Nostradamus.
For the benefit of those of us with soothsaying powers, is this going to be the Obama Administration, the Guiliani Administration, the Brownback Administration, the Clinton Administration, or the Administration of someeone who has not yet entered the race?
hi Spiros, there are not that many options for the next US administration, are there? on specialised issues like climate policy, they all rely on the same small group of advisors which vary slightly between the Republican and the Democratic candidates
one really needs to spell out every single detail at this website
John Q: as I said
the main EU governments can ignore their Kyoto targets at will — missed targets can only be challenged in parliament — one does not need an act, or a regulation, or a decree, or decision or anything to be allowed to miss a target — the government cannot be challenged in court, and neither can parliament
environmental targets in the EU are aspirational only, which goes a long way to explaining why the EU so happily accepts targets — if we decide later that the target was wrong, we just ignore it
“However, the masses are not about to… …follow the Bob Browns of world into some form of pre-industrial age communal living.” Andrew.
That is a stupid, dishonest claim, which completely misrepresents position taken by Brown (and others). It is also a classic example of the hysterical smear campaign tactics long used against environmental issues and those who raise them.
Try again.
The EU remains without a constitution, there is no definition of powers of member states vs those of the EU. The defeated draft constitution would have given more power to the EU over member states, at present the EU parliament cannot act over laws of member states and cannot initiate legislation, thay can only ‘advise’.
There is still no agreement as to how EU member states will achieve CO2 ands energy targets and how.
http://euobserver.com/9/23652
Seeker, I suspect you’re probably correct – Bob Brown (and others) probably don’t really mean everything they say and probably misrepresent themselves alot of the time….. Bob Brown probably doesn’t really want to shut down the coal industry in three years, he probably just said that to create noise and raise awareness of the issue… an ambit claim if you will. I’m assuming that you don’t agree that this is good idea?
I raise it again as an answer to JQs question on why there are still denialists…. surely intelligent people can’t believe that GW is not real? I think the answer is simply that whilst you have intelligent people like Bob Brown on one side making wild ambit claims, you will inevitably end-up with intelligent people on the other side making their own ambit claims.
“Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.” — Albert Einstein
From a source very close to the government
CONCLUSION OF TREATIES BY AUSTRALIA
In Australia, under the Constitution, only the Federal Government can conclude treaties – the States and Territories have no power to do so.
Pursuant to the Constitution, the treaty-making power is formally exercised by the Governor-General, who acts on the advice of Ministers. When it is proposed that Australia become a party to a treaty, the text of the treaty must first be approved by Cabinet or, if its subject matter falls within existing policy, by relevant Ministers. It must then be approved by the Governor-General in Council (Executive Council) which authorises the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to issue a formal instrument providing for signature, ratification of, or accession to the treaty, as appropriate.
The approval of Parliament is not required for the conclusion of a treaty. However, a treaty is not binding in itself in Australian domestic law. If Australian law – State, Territory or Federal – must be altered to give effect to a treaty, the necessary legislation must be passed by Parliament in the normal way. Australia will not become a party to a treaty unless this has been done prior to the treaty becoming binding on Australia.
Federal Parliament is kept informed of the treaty-making activities of the Government by the tabling in both Houses of the texts of treaties which the Government has under consideration for treaty action, together with a National Interest Analysis. The Government will not, except in cases of extreme urgency, take binding treaty action until fifteen sitting days after tabling. The Joint Standing [Parliamentary] Committee on Treaties examines and reports on all tabled treaties.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaty_list/TL-introduction.html
The convention here is clear – the treaty is not binding in domestic law but Australia will not ratify a treaty until domestic legislation has been passed to make it binding. This convention itself is non-binding, so plenty of room here for hair-splitting folks. Split away!
Not really, for the treaty to be law the Australian parliament must approve treaties entered into by the cabinet or ministers. Once the parliament approves the bill, the treaty becomes binding ie L.A.W.
Andrew. I think it is fair to describe it as an ambit claim, of the kind hardly unknown in mainstream politics. I would not have made that claim myself. There is simply no way that the coal industry will be closed in 3 years. Ten-twenty years, maybe.
Sorry if I seemed a little hot under the collar, but as someone who has followed environmental politics and issues for over two decades, and who knows a bit more than the average punter about the basic science and technology behind some of it, it really annoys me that this stuff is STILL so misrepresented by otherwise sensible, decent people. No serious member of the environmental movement is arguing we should go back to pre-industrial lifestyles, that is a total crock of shite. Indeed, they are arguing the opposite, that we should accelerate the development and implementation of high efficiency and sustainable technologies. Which is hardly Luddite or anti-market in nature. And, frankly, if we had listened to them earlier, we wouldn’t have half the problems we have got now.
Rant off.
Cheers.
Hmm, suffering from the delusion that I keep posting the same thing here and it keeps disappearing, let me try again. Since every treaty involves a loss of sovereignty what is the point, except that some prefer invasion to diplomacy? OTOH, a this has lead me to a brief reading of the Australian Constitituion and it appears that the Parliment can limit the jurisdiction of the courts, so again, what’s the point.
Richard Tol: “John Q: You’re ducking the point. My source of info is someone very close to the government, and this person claims that environmental law is binding in Australia. If this is not true, then Australia could have signed, ratified and converted the Kyoto Protocol without a loss of sovereignty, and Lavoisier is wrong and my point is moot.”
Richard, your source is wrong.
As others have pointed out, international treaties are only binding on Australian governments when, and to the extent, that they have been incorporated into Australian law.
More importantly, Australia’s constitutional system is much more similar to the UK’s than to America’s, meaning there are very few constitutional limits on the power of Parliament. (While we have a written constitution its a minimalist document which imposes very few restrictions on the powers of Parliament.
Should a government dislike the effect of a treaty, they can simply amend the legislation which enacted the treaty into Australian law. They can even, if they wish, make such amendments retrospective.
The Howard government’s treatment of international treaties covering the rights of refugees is a pretty good example of the limited effect of such agreements on Australian law.
The fact that as your source correctly claims Australian governments can be sued is pretty trivial in this context (especially since the standiung to sue also derives not from the Constitution but from Acts of Parliament which can also be amended at the government’s whim.)
Richard Tol: “John Q: You’re ducking the point. My source of info is someone very close to the government, and this person claims that environmental law is binding in Australia. If this is not true, then Australia could have signed, ratified and converted the Kyoto Protocol without a loss of sovereignty, and Lavoisier is wrong and my point is moot.”
Richard, your source is wrong.
As others have pointed out, international treaties are only binding on Australian governments when, and to the extent, that they have been incorporated into Australian law.
More importantly, Australia’s constitutional system is much more similar to the UK’s than to America’s, meaning there are very few constitutional limits on the power of Parliament. (While we have a written constitution its a minimalist document which imposes very few restrictions on the powers of Parliament.
Should a government dislike the effect of a treaty, they can simply amend the legislation which enacted the treaty into Australian law. They can even, if they wish, make such amendments retrospective.
The Howard government’s treatment of international treaties covering the rights of refugees is a pretty good example of the limited effect of such agreements on Australian law.
The fact that as your source correctly claims Australian governments can be sued is pretty trivial in this context (especially since the standing to sue also derives not from the Constitution but from Acts of Parliament which can also be amended at the government’s whim.)
Breaking news; the EU have agreed on a reduction of CO2, 20% by 2020. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said “We can say to the rest of the world, Europe is taking the lead….You should join us in fighting climate change.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,470926,00.html
Green groups have hit out at Barroso claiming that his choice of vehicles are not in line with reducing consumption. Barroso replied ““I never see myself as an example. A moralistic approach is not mine. We are setting public targets and should avoid giving certificates of good behaviour to individuals.â€?
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1480366.ece
Barroso is quite correct, climate change should not involve moralising or shaming others and to do so is counter productive.
Ian, Roger: Thank for the crash course in Australian law. They way I understand this, is that once an international treaty is converted into domestic law, it is binding until an new law is passed. That is stronger than in the EU, where the law can just be ignored.
Kyoto would have infringed Australian sovereignty, but in a minimal way only.
Observa,
When we attempt to understand the action of politicians, it isn’t totally unreasonable to assume that self-interest and hypocrisy are prime motivators.
However this isn’t necessarily the case with Rann’s 50/50 pledge.
1. Essentially all current powerplants will need to be replaced before 2050. Rann may simply want to avoid compensating the owners of the current brown-coal baseload powerplants for an early shut-down. Replacing these plants with more gas-power or renewables when they reach the end of their operating lives may be the economically rational response.
2. Rann may believe that other sectors of the SA economy can reduce emissions by more than 50% to offset additional emissions from the power sector.
3. As part of a national emissiosn trading scheme, it may be rational for SA to buy emission credits rather than reduce its own emissions. This obviously depends on the cost of new low-carbon technologies in different parts of Australia beign lower than in SA.
4. Closing down the Hazelwood, Loy Yang and Yallourn brown coal powerplants in Victoria and replacing them with gas powerplants; black-coal-generated power supplied from New South Wales and Queensland or with coal gasification plants running off brown coal is probably the lowest-cost medium to long-term way of significantly reducing Australia’s energy-related GHG emissions. (I say probably becasue we don;t know how the future price of renewables is going to move.) If we pursue that policy (including compensating the owners and assisting the workers to retrain), other states may only need to contribute relatively small emission reductions.
Andrew (and Seeker) Bob Brown may or may not have been making an ambit claim, but he was NOT suggesting closing down the coal in three years. What he called for was the drawing up of a plan *within three years* to phase out the coal industry over a longer period of time (I think ten years was mentioned).
I’m not sure what Flannery’s position is.
Now one may question whether such a plan is necessary, but in a carbon constrained world the coal industry is certainly going to be shrinking in the medium to long run, so such a plan may prove useful if more radical than required. Even in the non-existent prospect of a Green government at this election Brown is not suggesting we have coal export shut by 2010.
Brown backs Flannery’s position to end all coal mining.
Locally the Greens are backing the thoroughbred horse industry who are asking for a moratorium on coal; Bob Oatley once complained that a new mine had ruined the view of his valley. Needless to say the mine went ahead and Oatley sold Rosemount for a fortune.
Thank for the crash course in Australian law. They way I understand this, is that once an international treaty is converted into domestic law, it is binding until an new law is passed. That is stronger than in the EU, where the law can just be ignored.
on what basis do you say that a law in the EU can just be ignored?
StephenL: Thanks for the clarification that Brown’s position is actually more reasonable.
Snuh: Laws on the environment can be ignored by the government, because of faulty separation of powers.
As seems to be the case a lot, I’m not quite clear what Richard is claiming here. This BBC report of a 20 million euro fine, plus continuing penalties imposed on France by the European Court of Justice for failing to implement an agreement on fishing, suggests that EU-level agreements aren’t entirely toothless. And this case where Friends of the Earth successfully sued the German government to make them disclose the climate impact of export credits suggests that environmental groups can take national governments to court over actions that violate national environmental law.
I imagine there are lots of qualifications to be made here. I’ll leave it to Richard to make them, or restate his claim that governments can just ignore the law.
PrQ,
There are numerous examples of EU governments ignoring EU law for long periods. Only after an extended period does the EU actually come in and try to force the matter.
Even the example you gave – the BBC report – makes this clear. The ruling came in 1991 and it was only in 2005 that the fine was imposed. My guess would be tht the actual treaty establishing the fishing rules was signed years, if not decades, earlier. I do not have the time, or the need, to research further back.
Richard may have somewhat overstated the case in saying it can simply be ignored, but it can certainly be set to one side for extended periods if the relevant government finds it inconvenient to implement. The bigger the countries the longer this period seems to be, with France a notable example.
AR, I agree that the law is slow, and its enforcement against governments is undoubtedly politically constrained. This is true in Australia also – the Mabo case took ten years to get a High Court judgement, and many more years to take effect. The NCP process was comparably protracted, and I’m sure I could think of many more examples if you want them.
As I said, there are plenty of qualifications to be made here. I’d just like Richard to make the qualifications first, instead of making overstatements of the case, and then taking any questioning of them as an attack on his authority.
John Q: Great counterexamples.
France was fined, at long last, for not carrying out inspections — not for not protecting fish stocks as they had committed themselves too.
Germany was sued under the local version of the freedom of information and due process acts.
If you want to see examples of the EU and its Member States violating their laws and regulations, look no further than the 1995 and 2000 targets for carbon dioxide emissions — proudly announced, widely missed, and largely forgotten. As I said, the current show on targets for 2020 is to make people forget about 2012.
Now, a purist lawyer may argue that the targets were never law anyway, and seldom are. Targets are aspirations, and measures are law. And one needs to do an ex-ante study to show that the measures will meet the aspirations …
That’s global stuff. In local stuff, local authorities are often exempt from rules on recycling, energy efficiency, wastewater. The reasoning is simple. The authorities always act in the best interest of the people; regulation is therefore unnecessary.
As you say, targets aren’t laws, and governments, business and individuals everywhere routinely announce targets, miss them, and try to get everyone to forget about them. I thought you were claiming some distinction between the EU and the world at large, regarding the enforcability of laws against national governments.
Local authority exemptions were the rule here until recently, but a lot of them have been removed as part of competition policy. I’m pretty sure the same is true of the UK, but quite possibly the rest of the EU is lagging a bit in this respect.
I’d be interested in more details on the 1995 and 2000 targets you refer to. Do you mean targets to be achieved by these dates announced at some earlier date – if so, I must concede they have been forgotten, at least by me.
If by 1995 targets you mean the targets for 2010 announced in 1995, then it’s pretty clear that they will be missed (unsurprisingly, since they relied on voluntary measures), but it’s hard to say they have been forgotten, since the automotive component has just been replaced by mandatory measures with a target date of 2012.
The ECJ can only rule on treaties of the EU and cannot overrule national laws. It should be pointed out that France ignored 15 years of fines by the ECJ and I can find no evidence that they have paid the last one, but could presume that they have.
Thanks, Rog.
John Q: Lavoisier has a case: Kyoto would have reduced Australian sovereignty. They overstated their case, but then who does not? Rather than discussing their case on its (meagre) merits, you ridicule them. You ridicule me for pointing out that they have a case. And you try to distract the attention from the original point, by turning the attention to environmental law in the EU and its member states.
Ditto for Landscheidt. Anybody who has looked at the physics (pre-Svensmark) knows that the solar cycle cannot influence climate. Yet, anybody who has looked at the data knows that it does. Rather than discussing the case at its merits, you ridicule Landscheidt. He was a serious man, who also dabbled in astrology, like many of his generation. You argue that because of his interest in astrology, his climate work must be wrong (and conveniently forget that many others have drawn the same conclusion) – and imply that, because they cite a man who is also interested in astrology, Lavoisier are all fools.
I may discern a pattern here. You initially try to argue on merit, but when someone has a genuine objection, you quickly move to distraction and abuse.
I’m sorry Richard, JQ brought up environmental law in the EU and its member states? Do you even try to be honest, or do you have the memory of a prokaryotic bacterium? I’m not sure the latter is sufficient in any case, as the blog will serve as record for any sufficiently diligent primordial organism. So, please the court, read what you wrote in #36 again and pull yourself together.
Btw, Lavoisier’s claim regarding the loss of sovereignty is clearly hyperbolic, regardless of how tedious and long-winded you want to get on the subject (one advantage of not being an academic is that I don’t have to humor such nonsense). However, it should also be noted that the claim that this group of paid hacks is intellectually dishonest is not dependent on it. That can rest nicely on myriad other bases- if interested (and I won’t hold my breath), you can always click the link in the blog post.
Majorajam rides to John Q’s rescue again.
Lavoisier made a point about sovereignty. I argued that they had a point, and added that they overlooked the EU bit of their point. John Q only wants to talk about the EU afterwards. Fair enough, I provided a distraction, but John Q grabbed it with both hands, and he refuses to return to the actual discussion that he started in the first place.
Anybody who has looked at the physics (pre-Svensmark) knows that the solar cycle cannot influence climate. Yet, anybody who has looked at the data knows that it does.
No no no.
This is just plain wrong – in fact, I’m not sure if it is possible to be more wrong than this. It has been known for a long time that solar cycles can potential effect climate, however the data indicates that they don’t (at least not significantly).
The Lavoisier statement was ludicrous hyperbole, just like the Eurosceptic I quoted (whom I notice you ignored). Comparing a treaty on energy use with foreign invasion is silly.
As regards the merits of Landscheidt’s serious work, let me quote an extract from a review of his major work published in 1989.
Is there a physicist in the house?
John Q: Old habits die hard. Why don’t you stop ridiculing that poor Landscheidt, forget about astrology, and see whether you can provide arguments for Ken Miles’ claim? Your line of argument is akin to “Aristotle was pro-slavery and anti-usury. I am anti-slavery and therefore pro-usury.”
Ken M: I was talking about the cycle in sunspot numbers, not about the sun in general. I was talking about variability, not about change.
Richard, that high energy ions can cause condensation is well known (cloud chambers [which use this effect to measure radiation] were invented almost hundred years ago). Svensmark’s contribution to the experimental data is minor.
This abstract was written in 1975 (pre-Svensmark):
Mechanisms possibly connecting solar activity to meteorology of the lower atmosphere are reviewed. Besides direct variations of solar visible emission, solar-related fluctuations in some aspect of cloudiness could be important. Any such variations are likely to be related to variations in production of ionization near the tropopause by galactic cosmic rays, the only geophysical phenomena unconnected with upper atmospheric processes known to have a striking (negative) correlation with solar activity. Such a connection might involve a dependence of sulfate aerosol formation on ionization and in turn a dependence of cloud radiative properties on variations of the aerosol particles’ action as cloud condensation nuclei.
From Solar Variability and the Lower Atmosphere by Robert E. Dickinson (Bulletin American Meteorological Society Vol 56, page 1240 1975).
Here’s a interesting abstract concerning the relationship between solar cycles/cosmic rays and climate.
The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility
or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.
The full paper can be found here.
Why don’t you stop ridiculing that poor Landscheidt, forget about astrology, and see whether you can provide arguments for Ken Miles’ claim?
Why on earth would is it John’s job to provide arguments for my claim?
Surely, that’s mine job.
Likewise, it’s your job to either provide evidence for your claims on solar/climate connections or retract them.
Ken: Thanks. Laut’s paper effectively attacks one statistical paper, but leaves all the others standing. I do not need to provide this, as you can search the Web of Science or Scopus yourself — indeed, if you are an expert, you do not need this search.
I am, in fact, not interested in discussed the relationship between sun and climate — at least not with anonymous people of uncertain expertise.
I am more interested in John Q’s discussion tactics. Arguments like “Landscheidt did astrology and therefore his climatology is wrong” and methods like “Curtin throws up uncomfortable facts and therefore I will exclude him”.
I cant see any problem with the “Landscheidt did astrology and therefore his climatology is wrongâ€? argument, its exactly the same as “Al Gore is a failed politician and therefore his climatology is wrongâ€? . Both are in the same category of the “aiiens stole my baby” tabloid broadcast.
Once we can agree that both sides of the fence are represented by frauds then the program can move on.
Is Robert Carter a ‘delusionist’ or are the Global Warming Exaggerators the delusionists?
Robert Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University, Queensland.
In a blog late last year, Dr Carter joined other geologists in ticking off Mr Gore over his perceived failure to acknowledge the globe’s long history of climate change.
“Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Dr Carter wrote.
“NOR DOES HE PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT CLIMATE DURING THE 20TH CENTURY DEPARTED DISCERNIBLY FROM ITS HISTORICAL PATTERN OF CONSTANT CHANGE.”
Global Warming falls “within the natural range of environmental change on our planet�.
He is a “moderate” scientist with no political axe to grind. Can that be said for the ‘delusionist exaggerators’. The people that want to introduce a new tax based on a delusion.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-have-inconvenient-news-for-gore/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html
Rog: I disagree. John Q’s assertion is that because Landscheidt erred in Area A, he must have erred in Area B too, and anything he ever said about Area B must be wrong.
According to John Q’s logic, Newtonian physics is bollocks because Newton dabbled in alchemy.
My assertion is less sweeping: Al Gore is a politician, and therefore cannot be trusted with the truth. I do not claim that anything Al Gore ever said must be wrong.
“Is Robert Carter a ‘delusionist’?”
Yes. The patently dishonest statement is additional proof of that to anyone who needs it.
Oh and that group of “moderate scientists with no political axe to grind” is made up entirely of denialists (and fitting makes up almost the entirety of the scientifically qualified denialists).
The axe-non-grinders include an anthropologist; a statistician; an etymologist and a political scientist. I’m sure if a group of scientists with those qualifications came out and enorsed Al’s movie, their opinions would carry equal weight with you.
A further rebuttal of this nonsense can be found here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/233737/021
“their opinions would carry equal weight with you.”
No, but it is convenient for the ‘GW Exaggerators’ to disregard the climatic research undertaken by Dr Carter and other geologists.
His research provides a fairly accurate record of global temperature fluctuations for the last 60,000 years. All this information is stored in rocks and as a geologist, he is better qualified than most to collate it.
So when he infers that “climate during the 20th century has not departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” It would be very difficult to dispute that fact.
Some of the other things in his ‘Ten Facts’ make sense. (Although parts are justifiably disputed)
His;
“TEN FACTS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Climate has always changed, and always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show at most minor atmospheric warming since then. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists still believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
3. Despite the expenditure of about US$50 billion dollars on climate research since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a lesser greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80) of the total greenhouse effect (330), of which in turn at most 25% (~20) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water, at ~60-70% of the effect, is by far the most important cause of atmospheric greenhouse warming.
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a mild positive temperature feedback).
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby, leading to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, recently retired as Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz”.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars, will have a devastating effect on the economies of those countries that have signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism”. If Kyoto is a “first step”, it is in the wrong direction.
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model will be able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. And thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
IMHO point ten is a reasonable reflection of reality and the way we should be heading.
“Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.”
I guess that’s one of the “justifiably disputed” bits.
“And thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study.â€?”
Surely you aren’t referring to the Oregon Petition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
“In 2005, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400* signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. [13]
One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? [14]”