The Oz has published another response to my piece in the Fin, this time from Christopher Pearson. Unlike with William Kininmonth, I can’t complain about misquotation: Pearson gives extensive and fairly representative quotes from the article.

Pearson cites my observation that conservative political activists have constructed a parallel intellectual universe and goes on to say

This is precisely the kind of analysis I apply when trying to explain what sociologists call the plausibility structures that serve to underpin the twilight world of the warmists. Quiggin is fighting fire with fire, in much the same way that Marxist and Christian apologists used to try and encompass and thus explain away one another’s world views

Analytically, this is about right. Parallelism is a symmetric relationship, so Pearson’s view of my intellectual universe (and that of, among others, the US National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, NOAA, CSIRO and well over 95 per cent of active climate scientists) is much the same as my view of his (where these roles are filled by bodies like, among others, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Lavoisier Group, and experts such as those on Senator Inhofe’s list of 650-odd dissenters

– note the presence of such eminent Australian scientists as Louis Hissink and Alan Moran of the IPA).

I’ve always managed to maintain civil terms of debate with Pearson, and I hope to continue that, but of course discussions between parallel universes tend not to result in much in the way of serious engagement. I will however, restate my point that the problems with the parallel universe go well beyond climate change. An example is the way Pearson fell for the bogus claim that environmentalists had banned the antimalarial use of DDT, a claim propagated by now-discredited tobacco industry hack Stephen Milloy, and circulated through the parallelosphere by such authorities as Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Crichton. I had a to at it here and parasitologist Alan Lymbery did a thorough demolition here

. Pearson didn’t AFAIK revisit the DDT myth (and even refers to it as a human health hazard here), but neither has he learned any lessons about the reliability of sources like Lomborg and Crichton.

Read More »

As I hinted in my post on the Senate Committee on Emissions Trading, Senator Ron Boswell went pretty much ballistic when I said that people who rejected the science of climate change had nothing useful to contribute to the debate. I was a bit surprised at his vehemence, but it turns out there was a good reason. Along with Barnaby Joyce, Boswell is launching Ian Plimer’s latest contribution to the delusionist literature
[1].

Comments from me, David Karoly, Ian Lowe and Ben McNeil .

To restate the conclusion of my last Fin column,

Until conservatives adopt a reality-based approach to climate change, as they have done in Europe and the UK, they cannot be taken seriously as an alternative government.

fn1. I don’t think anyone has yet had the patience to work through and identify all the errors in this deplorable work, but Tim Lambert has identified a couple of dozen Made of Honor hd . For anyone willing to be convinced, the fact that Plimer includes a graph from Martin Durkin’s ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ which was so obviously wrong that even Durkin had to withdraw it is a pretty good measure of the level of scholarship Plimer has devoted to this.