Between the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the on-air demolition of Martin Durkin and, most significantly, John Howard’s self-proclaimed conversion from ‘sceptic’ to ‘realist’ on climate change, I had the impression that delusionism was finally a spent force within the government. It was known that a couple of senior ministers, most notably Ian MacFarlane and Nick Minchin, remained unconvinced, but they seemed willing to keep quiet most of the time. Even the commentariat seemed to be cautiously backing away.
The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation suggests all this was premature. Four of the six government members of the committee (Dennis Jensen Jackie Kelly, Danna Vale and David Tollner) signed a dissenting report denying that human activities are disturbing the climate in dangerous ways, and describing those who accept the mainstream view as “fanatics�. If this is the view of government members who have chosen to serve on a committee devoted to science, one can only guess at how widespread such ideas are within the government.
I plan a piece for Thursday’s Fin looking at all this. Of course, I’m not going to bother with silly talking points about climate change on Triton. The real question here is how such beliefs can maintain a hold, long after the corporate push behind them has evaporated and at a time when they are so obviously a political albatross for the Howard government and for the political right as a whole. The right (at least in Australia and the US) has entered the kind of self-reinforcing pattern of disconnection from reality that long characterised the Marxist left.
Update This report has really hit the big time, making it into the Washington Post. Too much blog comment to list everything, but don’t miss Trevor Cook.
John Quiggin 
There are better qualified people than Jensen (he’s a metallurgist) who have adopted a credulist position so his qualification is no guarantee against it. People like to put forward someones qualifications as a basis for their credibility but I’d say this isn’t reliable unless they are qualified to the extent of regularly and recently publishing well-reviewed papers in the subject.
At least these people cannot be accused of hypocrisy down the track. Two possible contexts are
1) the failure of clean coal. Their position being that it was never necessary.
2) likely increased Chinese coal demand http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/5/13/105158/220 Let’s see how PM Rudd handles this one.
Frankly, I remain disgusted and disillusioned with what passes as “thinking” in the 21st century. We have had people like Kevin Donnelly fulminating in the press about the dumbing down of the education system. What sort of endorsement is it of the education system over past decades if we have elected members of parliament, prominent people in business and “thinkers” comprising much of the commentariat who cannot tell the difference between rhetoric and evidence? Where ideology colours people’s opinions to such an extent they cannot separate ore from dross? Honestly, the “wide open spaces” in Australia are between peoples ears, listening is a lost art because of the deafening cacophany of dog whistles, and anybody capable of engaging in critical thought is irrelevant because they fail to connect with the politics of the day.
Anyone dependent on the public purse cannot criticise the products of such poor thinking because it conflicts with current policies, which are as degrading as they are far-reaching. Where have we come to when it is controversial to define clear thinking and demand it in public discourse, policy and in the classroom? Currently it is impossible to exceed the bathetic limits of political debate, where cheap ideology and mini-me tooism reign supreme.
If we understand risk properly, we will see that parts of it can be defined scientifically, which relies on evidence – and that evidence is interpreted within a logical, not a rhetorical framework; others parts of risk are value-based, which is where moral and ethical arguments, utilising both rhetoric and evidence, reside. Yet science is degraded by false subjectivity and meaning by false objectivity. Plenty of room for debate, but let’s not pretend that climatic trends on another planet have anything to do with our own, or that scientific conclusions which can be used to imply market failure can be discounted because of our own normative conclusions about how markets should work.
It is vital to the public process to better define risk and to articulate where the hard, scientific, aspects lie and where the “soft” value-based aspects lie and how they interact.
(Steps down off soap-box)
Is Michael Costa considered to be on the right?
He’s generally regarded as the most prominent and hardline single member of the “NSW Right” faction, which in turn is regarded as the most rightwing grouping within the ALP. To the extent that there are any Wets left in the Liberal party, Costa would be to their right.
For that matter, although Marn Ferguson is a hereditary princeling of the Socialist Left, his actual views would not be out of place among the more troglodyte members of the Liberal backbench.
Party affiliation is not a reliable guide in these matters.
Recent revision of US temperatures by NASA shows 1934 to be the hottest year, not 1998.
They keep moving the freaking goal posts both past and future – and we are expected to invest trillions and lower our future standards of living based on this inconclusive science.
And Australia, emmitting about the same amount as global aircraft emmisions is expected to BOHICA while the rest of the world merrily goes along improving their own lot.
What a joke!
Razor, NASA’s revision was tiny; if this amounts to moving the goal posts – well we can all continue to play the game without noticing the move. JQ, I don’t know what the problem you see is supposed to be. Except for a very few cynical liars, don’t you think that most of the denialists convinced themselves of the truth of what they were saying? There is a reason why science is said to advance one funeral at a time: even well-motivated people find it hard to revise their beliefs. And the denialists were never well-motivated.
… And look who did the fact-checking for the dissenting report:
A veritable who’s who of denialism.
BTW, has everyone seen this? AFB!
Its just a tad better than “They call it pollution. We call it life.” Its nice to have the creatives on side. We’re going to need them.
You’ve been sucked in again, Razor. Do a proper search instead of reading rightwing blogs and you’ll see what a lame beatup this is.
I’m reading Guy Pearse’s book “High and Dry” on Howard and climate change and it discusses this stuff in quite a bit of detail. It seems that the delusionist Lavoisier group has quite a bit of influence over cabinet. From p150 of the book:
The other interesting players seem to me to be the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (also known as the greenhouse mafia). It seems to me that they have changed their position on climate change – they no longer oppose doing something about it and support policies like having an emisions trading scheme. It is very interesting to look at the submissions to the National Emissions Trading Taskforce and the Task Group on Emissions Trading from the AIGN and other groups such as the Australian Aluminium Council. These submissions are on the web. It seems to be that what they are doing now could be described as “gaming the system through crying wolf”. Their main claim is that a carbon price signal could make industries like aluminium production leave Australia causing ‘carbon leakage’, and they therefore should be given free permits. The carbon intensity of Australia’s energy implies that there would still be an emission reduction if these industries were to relocate overseas.
I’m not sure if this one is a joke or not – it’s hard to tell sometimes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0ixxcCqeuc
” This video exposes the global socialist conspiracy to rob hard-working Americans of V-8 power and discredit the Bible. The eco-communist Gaia movement exists solely to control the citizenry and tax future generations into the poorhouse. “
Here’s the realclimate view on the 1934 issue:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
What a beat-up!
Peter Wood:
By far the most interesting revelation in High and Dry comes about two-thirds down page 249: “The one bloke they won’t be interviewing soon is…”
The book itself is a bit repetitive and suffers from acronym overload. By comparison “Scorcher” is a page turner.
“Omigod the dirtiest known fuels on the planet are becoming scarcer and more expensive – the sky is falling!!”
Yes there’s always you for a good laugh Razor, persistently putting in the hard thinking yards in order to improve your own lot. You won’t find Peter’s link to be quite a nice spoof on your studly band of tootin’ ‘n pollutin’ fellow delusionists.
You are right Carbonsink, Scorcher is more to the point and well written. I didn’t read all of Part 1 of High and Dry and went straight to Part 2 – I wanted to get “straight to the dirt” so to speak.. That revelation on page 249 was pretty funny.
Just like creationists misuse quotations to provide an argument from authority so do Jensen and co.
They include a quotation from John Christy to support their no anthropogenic global warming, ignoring that Christy’s views on AGW are very very different to theirs. For example, Christy drafted and signed this statement:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth’s history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.
Not all denialists are just “for sale”; there are genuine, intelligent non-believers too, like Nigel Calder.
Prof. Quiggin has lectured readers of this blog on the costs of ignoring the big risks, but that sort of lecture doesn’t compute with those who can’t tell the difference between balancing probabilities and having an absolute certainty. There are no absolute certainties in science, none. Not even AGW. Every hypothesis is just the best explanation we have come up with so far. But there will always be people who won’t spend a cent except on a “sure thing”.
#4. Terje (“say Tay-a� ) wrote:
Is Michael Costa considered to be on the right?
So, what does Michael Costa have to do with this, Terje? Are you implying he’s a leftie of some kind?
When a genuine old-style leftie like Alexander Cockburn (as distinct from a new-Labour apparatchik like Costa) can publish several articles of pseudo-scientific nonsense in The Nation, articles in which he shows himself to be one of the most gullible of GW contrarians, then we may suspect “global-warming skepticism� is not ordered along left-right political lines.
That said, I think there is a preponderance of right-leaning types among GW “sceptics�. I believe this has much to do with the right’s hatred of the environmental movement in general. This shows that Costa must be on the the far right of the labour movement.
Peter
(say “Peter�)
Your comparison of Denialists with Creationists is apt Ken Miles.
Despite all of the credible evidence that the world was not created in 7 days there are many who fervently believe that only the story of Genesis in the Bible has it right. The rise of the religious fundamentalists and the beliefs of the delusionists are very similar; a great deal of anger towards those who see things differently; a great sense of self righteousness; a great desire to impose their views and solutions on others; plus strong belief in limited sources of information which reinforce the preferred world view.
“self-reinforcing pattern of disconnection from reality that long characterised the Marxist left.”
JQ I thought you where a historicist as well? afterall just like the Marxists you have “discovered” the rules of climate, and thru your models its ultimate destination, no longer is mankind living in uncertainty,you proclaim.
have you every heard of georg cantor and set theory btw?
Freeman Dyson (obviously another idiot denialist) puts it very well:
To naturalist and humanist I would also add opportunist: those who see climate change as a vehicle to further their own socialist or anti-capitalist politics. I used to be surprise at how anti-humanist most socialists really are.
Oh, and if we’re talking “denialist”, what kind of a denialist do you have to be to claim that a 60% reduction in CO2 by 2050 will have only 1% impact on people’s lives?
Peterd,
Michael Costa belongs to the party that occupies the opposite side of the bear pit. Michael Costa is critical of AGW. I wanted to know what John Quiggin (or others) thought of him in this context. I’m more than happy with the answer that John offered.
Your question has now been answered as was mine.
Offering a phonetic equivalent for Peter as you do is obviously without any practical purpose. I presume that you wish to mock my name as some form of clever debating tactic. It may surprise you to know that I’ve encountered this strategy before.
For a more entertaining take on Climate Change, the inimitable Fake Steve Jobs.
it seems wrong and counterproductive to characterize gw skeptics as delusional. the vast majority are perfectly sane on this matter. they speak and act out of self interest. even if wrong as to the science, even if hypocritical, they are not delusional.
the only widespread delusion in oz society is the fixation that oz is, in some sense, a democracy. there is genuine nation-wide psychosis.
Get with the program mugwump, why settle for fake IT execs in your climate science reading when you used to be so hot for novelists and Canadian economists? And physicists – Freeman Dyson and Nigel Calder et al are silly old men, what you need for your climatological entertainments is that inimitably silly young physicist and anti-commie crusader Lubos Motl. Get Lumo for a real belly laugh! Then don’t forget to come back and tell us all about what you found out about climate change from him (that’s how we the rest of John’s readers get our own laughs, thanx).
Al, I’d rather you didn’t keep on throwing the democracy stuff randomly into discussion threads. If you want to make a serious argument about this, why don’t you put it in one of the open threads.
Mugwump, I’d be happy to have a standing bet with you that any controversial proposition put forward by FD is wrong. I’d be worried if he wasn’t a delusionist.
Mugwump, your Freeman Dyson quote points up very nicely a real issue in the conservation/AGW debates. The quote starts off: “The biosphere is the most complicated of all the things we humans have to deal with. The science of planetary ecology is still young and undeveloped. It is not surprising that honest and well-informed experts can disagree about facts.” How true! Yet, having said that, Dyson can go on to finish with: “The humanist ethic accepts our responsibility to guide the evolution of the planet.”
The hubris is as amazing as the inability to see the contradiction. We now know how little we know. In our parents’ generation, people either thought we knew it all or that it didn’t matter. But what is “taking responsibility” in the face of an enormously complicated and imperfectly understood system on which your life depends? To a sensible person, it is to be very, very careful. Push the wrong buttons, pull the wrong levers and the whole thing could be wrecked. That isn’t going to alleviate the miseries of the poorer half of humanity; on the contrary, it could kill millions.
owls001, most of the dogmatic certainty I see on AGW is amongst the denialists. Your accusation that JQ is dogmatic is especially bizarre because he’s written a ton of stuff, both at a professional and popular level, on the risk management approach needed in the face of the large uncertainties on the extent and effects of future global warming.
To cut a long story short, this uncertainty argues for a strategy of relatively cheap measures done right now (the longer we leave it the higher the cost/effectiveness ratio), while also spending a little on preparation (especially technology research) for radically more disruptive measures in case they ever turn out to be needed.
It’s the “right now” bit that gives some of us the sh*ts at the behaviour of the denialists – that behaviour could end up forcing us into those drastic measures because it’s already cost us a lot of valuable time.
Unlike al, I think most denialists are just believing what they want to believe. The “grumpy defier of conventional wisdom” self-image is a deeply comforting one (I know because I’m fond of it myself), but unfortunately conventional wisdom sometimes is wisdom. To paraphrase Orwell, some things are true even if Bob Brown (or for that matter George Bush) says they’re true.
Ill take that bet.
Strangely enough, continuing to label anyone who dares question the received AGW wisdom a “delusionist” does not exactly win any of us over. Nor does the constant appeal to authority without addressing any of the science.
But hey, that’s religion for you. The Holy Writ is infallible.
Exactly, gordon.
We know one thing and one thing alone that has successfully lifted billions of people from abject poverty and misery: industrialization and capitalism. Why on earth would you risk the happiness of the remaining impoverished billions on some harebrained CO2 reduction scheme?
Mugwump, as I’ve said before, I no longer have any interest in winning over delusionists. It’s clear that they are beyond argument, and in any case are a political albatross for the government and for the right in general.
And as DD says, please stop with the “dares question received wisdom” stuff. The vast majority of delusionists, including you, are going along with the conventional wisdom of their group on a basis of tribal loyalty and wishful thinking. (Those acting on a basis of reflexive contrarianism are a much smaller group, but equally hard to shift at this point.)
If there is anyone who has come to an anti-AGW view on the basis of expert knowledge of the field and careful consideration of the evidence, without preconceptions either way, I’m not aware of them.
mugwump, invoking concern for the world’s poor may help you convince yourself that you are a good person and that your arguments against action on climate change are moral.
but consider: if global warming does end up having serious economic consequences, wouldn’t it be sensible to assume those consequences would fall disproportionately on the world’s poor? relevantly, the IPCC’s 4th assessment report concludes that, in the lower latitudes (primarily populated by poor people) and in places with marginal climates (i.e., africa), agricultural yields will fall even with modest 1-2C increases in temperature. they also make the perfectly obvious observation that “poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas. They tend to have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies.”
if you want to argue against the need for action on climate change, fine. but might i suggest next time picking an argument that actually supports your point?
Me.
And it is not an “anti-AGW” view. It is “AGW is nowhere near as settled as we are led to believe view”. What are the transition costs of a 60% global CO2 reduction in 40 years? What are the true modeling uncertainties? What are these strange manual adjustments to the temperature record?
It suits you to continue to paint all skeptics as some kind of fundamentalist believers, or contrarian sheep, for then you can dismiss them without engaging them seriously (eg, I have never seen you seriously address any of the scientific issues raised by McIntyre – you persist in judging him by his association with others). But your attitude only reflects badly on you.
As for the poor, you offer only hand-waving (albeit quoted from the Holy Writ).
I am not trying to convince myself that I am moral. I already know that. But I am entirely unconvinced that lowering CO2 emissions will help the poor. I strongly suspect that preventing the globe, including the poor, from emitting CO2 will have a far greater negative impact on their development prospects than will climate change.
so you can sarcastically dismiss the IPCC as “the holy writ”, but it is incumbent on john quiggin to address each and every argument mcintyre makes on the merits?
gordon, your point sums up the problem with Dyson’s thoughts. If one knew how the Earth System behaved intrinsically and under external forcing, one might be able to engineer it (or at least plan to engineer it) to achieve certain goals, but isn’t it true that human beings do not fully understand how the Earth System behaves?
“I am not trying to convince myself that I am moral. I already know that. But I am entirely unconvinced that lowering CO2 emissions will help the poor. I strongly suspect that preventing the globe, including the poor, from emitting CO2 will have a far greater negative impact on their development prospects than will climate change.”
Doesn’t this depend on the efficiencies associated with development?
mugwump:
No-one here is trying to win you over. Its pointless arguing the science with you because you will always deny it with some ready-made answer from http://www.globalwarmingisagiantleftisthoax.com, or worse, Andrew Bolt’s blog.
It may have been worth attempting to win you over 12-24 months ago when the denialist view still had some support in government, business and the general public, but that is no longer the case.
The laughter in Parliament when Garrett asked which planet these Government MPs were on was very telling.
Just one argument on the merits would be a good start. Try the latest:
Hardly the rantings of a madman, as JQ would have us believe. BTW, the quoted Y2K error was discovered by McIntyre a few days ago. Read the article – it’s interesting.
Of course.
Carbonsink, I don’t get my answers from those sources. But you are right, you no longer have to win me over. Democracy’s greatest weakness (and strength) is that you only have to win over 51% of the people. That’s why some countries have Bills of Rights: to prevent the herd trampling on everyone else.
However, lucky for you some of us still believe in fighting the good fight, even when outnumbered. Truth still has a chance of winning out.
it seems the answer to my question is “yes”
Let’s not forget the Arctic.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
As of 13 August, “Sea ice extent is currently tracking at 5.4 million square kilometers (2.1 million square miles), with daily extents running at 940,000 square kilometers (361,000 square miles) below previous daily record lows, a significant decline from past years.” 940,000 km2 is approximately the size of South Australia.
There’s still a month to go before the summer minimum.
For heaven’s sake mugwump read the thread – we’re all up with McIntyre’s latest piece of trivia. The only point of interest is the way the entire rightwing blogosphere has grasped at this straw, managing to make fools of themselves in all sorts of ways.
mugwump – “However, lucky for you some of us still believe in fighting the good fight, even when outnumbered. Truth still has a chance of winning out.”
Which is almost exactly what happened when a group of scientists first became aware of the problem of the enhanced greenhouse effect. They fought a very skeptical scientific community and truth of global warming was fought with peer reviewed science. The truth did win out then and now the scientific community has decided that global warming is a real phenomenon and could cause climate change.
The latter day skeptics, with one or two notable exceptions, are not part of the scientific community and do not publish peer reviewed science. The truth won out mate. McIntyre and his crew are only interested in finding doubt, not the truth.
Please read Spencer’s excellent history of the discovery of global warming:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
jquiggin – “The only point of interest is the way the entire rightwing blogosphere has grasped at this straw, managing to make fools of themselves in all sorts of ways.”
Especially as McIntyre is focussing on the annual means. An sorted list of the Top 10 5 year means tells a very different story:
Year Annual 5 Year
2000 0.52 0.79
1999 0.93 0.69
2004 0.44 0.66
2001 0.76 0.65
1932 0.00 0.63
1933 0.68 0.61
2003 0.50 0.58
2002 0.53 0.55
1998 1.23 0.51
1988 0.32 0.51
from this:
Year Annual 5 Year
1934 1.25 0.44
1998 1.23 0.51
1921 1.15 0.15
2006 1.13 *
1931 1.08 0.27
1999 0.93 0.69
1953 0.90 0.32
1990 0.87 0.40
1938 0.86 0.36
1939 0.85 0.45
Which is the top 10 annual means. 1934 was a sharp regional spike whereas recent warming is, from the figures, part of an overall warming trend as evidenced from the 5 year means.
mugwump is claiming JQ calls McIntyre a madman? Didn’t McIntyre get a thank you from Hansen for his correction of the recent US temp record? What do you want mugwump, nothing short of a beatification for St Steve? I thought we loved him enough already but greater love than yours hath no mythical blog critter, without Steve and the Lavoisier Institute there’d be no wumpish field of climate science would there?
??
This thread was about a dissenting group of MPs.I see above a link to realclimate’s lame response (among other things, Gavin Schmidt claims the 0.03C difference in 5 year means between 1930-1934 and 2001-2006 is significant, whereas the same 0.03C difference between 1998 and 1934 is not significant. Hint for Gavin: neither are significant in the statistical sense. In honest science you don’t get to pick the insignificant difference that suits your position and declare it significant).
Read McIntyre’s response – it is a far more honest assessment than that offered by the high priests of climate science.
Absolute rubbish, Ender. Every plot in this post has a five-year and annual mean.
As for your ranking, what’s your point? That years surrounding a peak in 5 year mean are also warm? That goes without saying. And don’t get too excited about those 1930s values: they’ve been the subject of systematic manual downward revision by NOAA for the last 7 years or so. The 1930s used to be much warmer. Why? Who knows – you’ll have to ask Hansen.
krusty, Quiggin has repeatedly libeled McIntyre in this blog. If he has changed his view, let’s hear it from him.
mugwump, I won’t even attempt to engage with you on the science of the issue, other than to state a simple fact: a very large number of scientists in the field seem to believe in AGW. What interests me is derrida derider’s point, which goes to public policy. There is a great deal that can be done now and done cheaply (or even better, with efficiency dividends). If you’re right, and it’s everyone else who’s out of step and wrong, then what’s the big deal about doing stuff cheaply now?
However – and I know this may be a difficult step, but give it a try just for the sake of argument – if it turns out all these scientists are right and it’s you wot’s wrong, and we’ve followed your prescription and done absolutely nothing about reducing emissions for another decade or two, then the measures we’ll need to take then will be much much more expensive and economically damaging for those poor people you’re lying awake at night worrying about.
So – your argument is that we should gamble that the vast majority of scientific opinion is simply wrong in order to save a few pennies. If we lose this gamble, we’ll lose big time, but if we win, we’ll have saved those pennies. Damn, that’s convincing logic. I’ll just now go and ring up the insurance company to cancel the house and car insurance. I sure could use those extra few hundred bucks a year.
“Climate science is a very new science and we have only just begun to explore the uncertainties,� said David Stainforth of Oxford University in England who contributed research to the Royal Society.
“We should expect the uncertainty to increase rather than decrease� in coming years as scientists work to understand the climate, he said.
Quoted here http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22234851-5005962,00.html
And still learning more and more-
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22251145-29277,00.html
Not that you’d think so listening to the new evangelist know alls and one percenters.
Meanwhile the usual orange bellied parrots are up to their old squawking tricks.
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22249134-31037,00.html
And I notice wheat at record prices after jumping another 10% in price. More blue sky here for farmers, as we put more and more of the world’s food in our petrol tanks.