For a long time, I’ve used the term “delusionist” rather than “sceptic” to describe those who reject mainstream science on global warming. In general, the term “sceptic” is inappropriate for the vast majority of this group, since their position is hardly ever based on a willingness to look sceptically at evidence without reliance on a preconceived views. The gullibility with which so many delusionists parrot the latest talking points (“Hockey stick broken!”, “Global warming on Mars”, Warming stopped in 1998″ and so on) is clearly incompatible with any kind of scepticism. And, given the volume of evidence that has accumulated on the issue, only an adherent of some very strong form of scepticism could reasonably remain undecided. Such a sceptic has now appeared in the form of Adam Shand, a Channel 9 journalist who said, in a recent Sunday program on global warming “it’s only an assumption” that summer is warmer than winter. I imagine he gets great prices on ski holidays, by going in January!
Of course, once you’ve gone this far in scepticism, why not go the whole hog? Radical scepticism provides the perfect argument for rejecting action to mitigate global warming – if we have no reason to believe in the existence of the external world, then trashing it can’t be a problem, can it?
While I’m on delusionism in the media, I should note that Gerard Henderson has a piece in the SMH trying to have it both ways in claiming to accept mainstream science on while touting the views of delusionists (there’s no suggestion that attention should be paid to those who think the consensus view understates the dangers!).
Meanwhile, Graham Young continues to trash the credibility of Online Opinion which once promised to become a serious alternative to the mainstream media. Clive Hamilton bids OLO farewell after its publication of a delusionist piece written by Canadian energy industry PR man Tom Harris.
John Quiggin 
Before we had religious zealots trying to ram their crap down our throats, now we have greenhouse zealots doing the same thing and calling none believers delusional.
Well maybe the greenhouse zealots are suffering from delusions of grandeur.
The more the weather changes the more it stays the same.
“There is a potential division in Labor on any emission trading scheme between its inner-city tertiary educated green voting base and its suburban and regional supporters who are employed in manufacturing and mineral industries. Sections of the former group can be disturbingly intolerant.”
I’d agree wholeheartedly with that. As for this-
“From a non-scientist perspective, it is reasonable to assume that the near consensus view is correct. But this does not lead to any necessary conclusions about when Australia should embrace an emission trading scheme in the short term.”
I’d generally agree with the sentiment but change the last sentence to more accurately reflect the truth that- “this does not lead to any necessary conclusions about IF Australia should embrace an emission trading scheme AT ALL.”
That said I’ll be interested to see what sort of ETS Garnaut can come up with to allay all my concerns about the current mythological creature the ‘inner-city tertiary educated green voting base’ have been worshipping for so long.
Actually it’s a very good question to ask of those who think we do need an ETS as a result of AGW. Why should we sign on to an ETS generally? Any takers? Perhaps then we can see how well Garnaut’s flesh on the bones stacks up with their reasoning. A useful exercise to explore any better alternatives too.
Actually it’s a very good question to ask of those who think we do need an ETS as a result of AGW. Why should we sign on to an ETS generally? Any takers? Perhaps then we can see how well Garnaut’s model stacks up with their reasoning. A useful exercise to explore any better alternatives too.
Actually, I don’t think the term delusionist is very good. Delusions are false beliefs that the individual believes are true. This suggests a lot of the people you are talking about actually believe what they are saying is true. This seems highly unlikely to me, and not backed up by evidence (how many of the smoking doesn’t cause cancer brigade ever smoked, for example?)
I think delusionist covers both producers and consumers of delusion. And while the wishful thinking required to be a consumer is obvious (see Tony G at #1 for example), it’s not inconsistent with a belief that what they are saying is true.
Of the leading purveyors of delusion, the only one I’d be absolutely confident in labelling as a conscious fraud is Steve Milloy.
re: #1 Tony G
See my comment #62 in earlier thread.
Can your explain why your unsupported opinion carries more weight compared to a few people I quoted:
– the CEO of a major gas&electric utility
– a geoscientist who ran the British equivalent of MIT and was later Chairman of Shell
– and a Nobel physicist / Stanford professor?
There is science and then there is policy, and there are a lot more degrees of freedom in the latter than in the former.
People who persist in denying solid science simply marginilize themselves out of relevance in debates about the latter.
There seem to be a lot of economists (Garnaut etc) and people who are qualified in everything but climatology who are the ‘self proclaimed experts’ on the subject.
Climatologist and geologist that study long term weather and climate are saying it is difficult to state categorically how the weather behaved in the past and it is more difficult if not impossible to state exactly how it will behave in the future.
The weather has been changing constantly since the world began, people have always talked about the weather.
We can all agree on one thing and that is the anthropological global hot air expelled talking about the weather has increased a lot recently!
Prof Q, I’d be _very_ inclined to add Jennifer Marohasy to the list of conscious frauds.
What really annoys me with these denialist idiots is that we cant opt out of their stupidity. We are all stuck on the planet and we are all going to fry.
I think for once we have to stand up to these morons with their deluded non scientific views, for our own survival.
#8 I’m not aware of any economists of significance who set themselves up as experts in climatology. We (Garnaut, Stern, me and most others) listen to the real experts. That means reading lengthy IPCC reports, talking to actual working climatologists and so on (I’m willing to bet Tony G has never done either).
By contrast, the number of utterly ignorant bloggers, blog commenters, hack journalists and so on who regard themselves as being better qualified than the experts is just about beyond counting (though still, fortunately, a small minority of the population as a whole).
“The weather has been changing constantly since the world began….” – Tony G
And people have been dying ever since there have been people, so why don’t we get rid of hospitals?
There are denialists, delusionists, skeptics and people like myself who I would describe as realists.
I don’t deny that climate change is a problem, I’m not deluding myself that that man-made CO2 emission isn’t part of the problem. My main concerns with the current debate is that we seem to be rushing headlong into a climate change response that might be worse for Australia than doing nothing.
The following questions need answering –
What is the economic impact of the ‘do nothing’ case for Australia?
What impact will we have on global climate change by curtailing emissions in Australia?
What will be the impact on Australia if we introduce a an emissions permit system ahead of our trading partners and the worlds major sources of greenhouse gasses?
The ‘reality’ is that we need to very careful that we don’t rush into something because we’re being urged to do so by green zealots – who may or may not have ulterior motives for trashing the Australian economy.
“listen to the real experts”
There is no truely conclusive evidence and there are many examples of conflicting evidence. Core samples are just one of the many examples.
Re: “GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years”
“However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa–or whether they increase synchronously. It’s also ‘UNKNOWN’ how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.”
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
At this stage man has not progressed enough to be able to accurately predict the weather a couple of days out let alone control the weather, although some economists might think they can control it through taxation.
“The weather has been changing constantly since the world began….â€? – Tony G
Is this supposed to be:
(1) a refutation of AGW
(2) a proof that AGW doesn’t matter, or
(3) part of a personal narrative?
It looks like part of narrative to me. 1 and 2 are trivially wrong.
Narratives are fun, but if you want to develop good public policy you’re way better using science.
Shorter Tony G: There is no such thing as truth, so I can believe what I like.
JB
No, it is a fact and since I got up this morning the temperature has changed from 7C to 16C.
The amount, degree and direction of the nearly infinite amount of changes in weather over the last 400k years is anybodies guess. What it will do tomorrow is an even bigger guess.
People have fantasised about controlling the weather for centuries and now we have economists who say they can do it with taxation.
If AGW is proved to be a problem and it is far from proven that it is, and if you guys were fair dinkum about reducing green house emissions, then Australia with hundreds of years of natural gas reserves could easily convert nearly everything to run on that and cut GH emissions by 90% with very little economic pain.
My goodness, you’re brilliant. All we need to do is shut down the coal fired stations and build gas ones and it’s problem solved! Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?
Oh and can you please make the primary school distinction between weather and climate?
Dictionary.com;
“1. the composite or generally prevailing WEATHER CONDITIONS of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.”
No wilful convert them like you would your car or replace it when it needs replacing with a CNG one.
You have until 2050 even by your own flawed calculations to get it done.
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/act/content/2006/s2269708.htm
Tony G
re: my previous question in #7.
Can I take it you don’t intend to answer us as to why your opinions carry more weight on this topic than the people I mentioned? or any weight at all?
The wrong arguments you mention can be looked up at John Cross’ ,a href=”http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php”>Skeptical Science.
32 Empirical evidence for AGW [empirical]
37 if scientists can’t predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?[weather]
10 CO2 lags temperature [co2lag]
You q
I’m curious: you’ve mentioned what climatologists say. Do you regularly attend climate science lectures by world-class climatologists and talk to them? If so, who, and where?
There is no truely conclusive evidence and there are many examples of conflicting evidence. Core samples are just one of the many examples.
Tony, ice core samples don’t conflict with AGW. In fact they provide strong support for the hypothesis.
And better yet, the prediction about CO2 levels being linked with ice ages was made over a hundred years ago by Arrhenius who (besides being one of chemistry founding fathers) was the first person to suggest that humans would raise the temperature via carbon dioxide.
John M, I think that you’ll find that Tony know more about the climate than the world climatologists. And he can do this without even reading their scientific publications. Quite a skill.
Tony G
re: my previous question in #7.
Can I take it you don’t intend to answer us as to why your opinions carry more weight on this topic than the people I mentioned? or any weight at all?
You quote an 8-year old web page by a consulting forester saying they don’t understand some things, most of which were well-understood by climate scientists years before. Do you regard that as an authoritative source? Why?
The wrong arguments you mention can be looked up at John Cross’ Skeptical Science. i.e., these arguments have been refuted by real science so often that John has a numbered set, ordered by recent popularity
32 Empirical evidence for AGW [empirical]
37 if scientists can’t predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?[weather]
10 CO2 lags temperature [co2lag]
I’m curious: you’ve mentioned what climatologists say. Do you regularly attend climate science lectures by world-class climatologists and talk to them? If so, who, and where? Do read Science or Nature, for example?
Tony G:
Try plotting a graph with two axes. On one axis have the amount of warming, and on the other axis have the probability of it happening. This will give you a better description of the problem than a simple dichotomous “yes” or “no”. You will also notice that the “0” on the amount of warming axis gets a very low probability.
The climate change faith may be more difficult to reject if it wasn’t for nutters like flannery running around making outrageous statements.
How the heck can one join a church that has such weirdos for priests?
John Mashey
We will just agree to disagree.
I am not advocating believing anyone or that my opinions carry any weight at all on this topic. I do not try to predict the weather and I challenge anybody who insists they can to prove it phd or not. Whether it is based on long term (400k years) analyses or short term (centuries, decades or days)
Wasn’t the consensus among scientists at one stage that the world was flat and then weren’t they proved wrong by Columbus.
The evidence from ice core samples, limes stone in caves and similar long term studies etc is inconclusive because it mostly conflicts with each other unless or until they collaborate with each other. Any fair dinkum study into long term climate using bonafide scientific methods is usually qualified with a similar statement to this ;
It’s ‘UNKNOWN’ how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.�
The variables are just to great to be conclusive.
This link states that the use of natural gas (of which Australia has 200 years worth of reserves) will cut greenhouse emissions by 80%. Conversion of nearly everything is simple and it is 1/3 the cost of present fuels.
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/act/content/2006/s2269708.htm
This might not suite people getting paid $400k+ per year who sit on their arse to pontificate about climate change or other vested interests, but it is economically viable to convert everything to CNG
JM or JQ or KM answer my question, if it is so urgent to kerb emissions of green house gases, why aren’t we moving to converting everything to CNG as it will cut emissions by 80%.
“At this stage man has not progressed enough to be able to accurately predict the weather a couple of days out ”
which leads us back to Alan Shand’s comments about summer and winter.
Personally I think the sun might explode tomorrow so paying taxes is stupid.
Tony,
In no particular order:
* Columbus didn’t discover that the world was round. That was known a long time before him.
* The ice cores etc don’t conflict with each. There are uncertainties due to imperfect data, but this is very different to conflicted with each other. Many features of the ice cores results were predicted in advance of their discovery. In science, this is a powerful argument.
* However, as we get closer to the present day, our data quality improves by orders of magnitude. Nobody has come up with a creditably quantitative explanation for the good quality data which does not include a significant contribution from greenhouse gases.
* Your link states that CNG has 80% less emissions than petrol – this doesn’t mean that Australia can reduce its GHG emissions by 80% by switching to CNG.
* There are significant issues with CNG. When I was a child, New Zealand made a significant push towards CNG with pretty poor success. However, putting a price on carbon, will encourage the uptake of alternatives such as CNG.
* For pontificating about climate change, I make far less than $400k.
How the heck can one join a church that has such weirdos for priests?
Because he knows what he’s talking about, and you don’t.
“it is a fact and since I got up this morning the temperature has changed from 7C to 16C.
The amount, degree and direction of the nearly infinite amount of changes in weather over the last 400k years is anybodies guess. What it will do tomorrow is an even bigger guess.” – Tony G
Dear god!
I thought that this one was so weak that the Denialists (oops, sceptics) had dropped it in the very early rounds of lets-make-up-some-weather-analogies-and-see-if-they-work.
The whole point of Garnaut et al in the draft is that uncertainty, risk, and impact are central to our response to the likelihood of severe impacts due to global warming. Of course the science is incomplete – no scientific field has ever “finished” its job – as there is always a new thing to measure, another question that can be asked. Using the most credible knowledge we have now is all we can do, and that is what Garnaut et al are persevering on achieving.
The real question for Tony G (and others with similar opinions) is why do they dismiss hard won data, observations, and other forms of evidence, when deciding on what to do in the face of uncertain consequences? Especially when the alternative “theories” are opinion based far more than evidence based? If you want to debate the science behind AGW, feel free to go out in the field and to do the research, then use it to strengthen your argument or to rebut your argument, as the data dictates. Of course, without data, it is real easy to feel smug in denying that AGW could be remotely correct.
I’m getting a strong feeling that wilful ignorance is becoming a way of life in Oz; and for that matter, at the Oz. Sheesh!
John
where is the primary source for Shand’s comment? Neither your not Tim Lambert quote it.
Zarquon @29. Don’t bore us with the basis for your statement that I don’t know what I am talking about.
However, your statement that Flannery knows what he is talking about is rubbish. Flannery (in addition to being a zealot) is a self-confessed exaggerator on climate change matters.
When the main pushers of the global warming religion are nutters like him, it is only ever going to attract the most soft-headed of our number.
Global warming/climate change (or whatever name it currntly goes by) is purely a matter of faith for those who choose to believe.
SATP Says:
The earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, and SATP has sensible things to say. The truth value of these statements is about the same.
Louis — you can see the full show here: http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=448
Q — this seems to be another example of you simply being rude in an attempt to shame sceptics into submission.
John Mashey — just because common arguments have been numbered, that doesn’t mean they have been answered. I’ve seen all the “answers” to issue 10 and they don’t remove the cause for concern.
I am a sceptic. You faithful (on both sides) are sure you have the answers. I think that there are gaps in human knowledge and that occasionally government policy doesn’t work perfectly. But I don’t expect the “AGW faithful” to engage in rational argument when they can rely on insults.
Louis, for the Shand-Flannery exchange,follow the link from Lambert’s blog. From Shand’s comment, I don’t think he could be described as a radical sceptic; that would imply some effort. He’s just a blithering ignoramus with a deadline who’s realised some boffin-types are opposed over some issue. It’s not as though PBL have a dedicated Science Unit.
John Humphreys Says:
Shorter John Humphreys: “I haven’t got a clue, but I’m nevertheless certain that everyone is wrong.”
re: #35 temujin
re: issue 10
So, exactly what is your cause for concern?
Did you read the 1990 Lorius, et al paper that John Cross mentioned? Do you understand what they were saying? Do you understand whether or not later ice-core records confirmed or disconfirmed what they were saying? If you still have cause for concern, have you talked to real climate scientists (I mean, people who publish serious peer-reviewed research) about it?
Do you (a) have a list of explicit *science* worries, such that if they were resolved, you would say:
“I now believe AGW is real and it’s a problem, and we’d better deal with it, although I will argue for minimal-government mechanisms”.
OR
is (b) there no such finite list, i.e., the goalposts will always move?
If (a), what’s your list?
SATP: Flannery is a weirdo so we can’t believe anything about climate science.
Let’s take this a little further. Isaac Newton was a weirdo given to Alchemy and had very strange views on the Pope, so we can safely ignore his laws of gravity and motion. Plus, Einstein proved him wrong, didn’t he?
What a convincing set of scientific arguments those are, and how sensible of you to make them.
Hal 9000, Flannery states that he is making it up to “scare” people. This is his “scientific argument”
When Newton dropped an apple, it indiputably fell to the ground. A scientific experiment that worked for him every time.
If the evangelists of the global warming church have a Micheal Moore type credibility rating, then that church is going to find scepticism aplenty in the broader population.
SJ — you perfectly show the bigotry of the AGW-faithful. You aren’t interested in discussion.
Mashey — If I may paraphrase… I already believe that “AGW is *probably* real and it’s a cause for concern that might require government action, although I want the government action to pass a robust benefit-cost analysis and I would prefer us to be cautious in the face of uncertainty”.
I have previously suggested a moderate carbon tax (fully-offset with other tax cuts), to be introduced slowly.
Be honest. What did you assume my position was?
The “concern” (perhaps wrong word) about #10 is that the historical link between co2 & temps does not prove that co2 is the primary driver of temps. I agree it also doesn’t disprove it.
Look, the denialists are so right. Really if 4000 or so climate scientists want to get together and produce a report – it can’t be right, because the denialist geniuses know that ‘climate always changes’ and Tim Flannery is (apparently) a bit weird.
And now we get the fantastic opportunity get to be the experiment! We will be the guinea pigs for the denialists assurances. Thanks guys.
Which report are you talking about Dave? If you’re talking about the IPCC… are all 4000 climate scientists and do all 4000 agree with the report?
Do you disagree that the “climate always changes” and do you think Tim Flannery has been honest in his portrayal of the current state of the debate?
If you see smoke coming in through your bedroom door, do you wait until you are *absolutely sure* that your house is on fire? Or do you go looking for a fire extinguisher?
Even if you don’t have perfect information, that does not mean that the best course is to do nothing.
Even if the course of action indicated by the best available information is expensive, you can expect that it will still be cheaper than the results of not doing anything.
Even if the information that we have is not certain, we are better acting now on that basis and then reassessing the situation when we have some more information.
And attacking the person who says something does not tell us anything about whether what they say is true or useful.
I don’t think it matters much who is “right”. From what I have seen I don’t think humanity has much capacity to influence events. I think the economy will behave metaphorically be like a frog boiling in water.
I plan to go and see the Reef and Kakadu a couple more times, apologise, and then kiss them good bye.
I am a sceptic. You faithful (on both sides) are sure you have the answers. I think that there are gaps in human knowledge and that occasionally government policy doesn’t work perfectly. But I don’t expect the “AGW faithful� to engage in rational argument when they can rely on insults.
Yawn.
Any attempt at rational debate has been well and truly killed off by the “skeptics”. Why should anybody attempt to engage with pseudoscientific jokes. I’ve tried, but have been beaten down by arguments similar to what JQ quotes above. It’s no different to debating with creationists.
I’m happy to discuss AGW with anybody who is willing to debate in good faith. Unfortunately, the words “honest” and “knowledgeable” don’t belong in the same sentence as the “global warming skeptics”.
What lies has Flannery said? Ever? He certainly considers this to be an extremely urgent issue, fundamental to our wellbeing. So do lots of highly educated, scientifically literate people. He highlights some of the high risk, lower probability impacts to try and get some action on this. He makes nothing up, unless SATP would like to prove otherwise?
Reminds me of the totally bullshit smear campaign against Gore. Fact is he said that there is a real risk of sea level rises of 20 feet, and fact is a lot of scientists think this is quite feasible, likely even.
Steve at the pub, you’re not fit to wipe Flannery’s arse when it comes to understanding climate change. Your entire revocation of this well-understood science issue is motivated entirely by your ideological settings.
(and now you’ll tell me Flannery’s a communist, right? ha ha)
“Hal 9000, Flannery states that he is making it up to “scareâ€? people. This is his “scientific argumentâ€?”
SATP
He did?
when and where?
for someone given to baseless threats of law suits you seems exceptionally casual about defaming others.
For Tony G’s elucidation, I link to a map of the world which Columbus took with him on his journey:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/
The scientists of Columbus’s day were well aware the world was round – however they believed the westward route ot Asia was too long to be feasible.
Having spent time in the Azores, Columbus was convinced there was land relatively close to the west based on evidence such as debris washing up after storms.
He therefore theorised, incorrectly that the world was much smaller than scientific opinion of the day maintained.
Silly question. Obviously you roll over and go back to sleep because fighting house fires is a government responsibility.