Australians and others who were happy to be included on Senator James Inhofe’s list (PDF, may need converting) of “scientists” whose “work” contradicts the mainstream view on anthropogenic global warming (scare quotes deliberate) may be interested to know that Inhofe has now emerged as a Birther, or at least a fellow traveller. Of course, Inhofe is also a young earth creationist, and his list includes people like creationist weathercaster Chris Allen who has no more (and no less) relevant qualifications than most of the Australians on Inhofe’s list.
It’s sad to see people with distinguished careers like those of Don Aitkin and Ian Plimer ending up supporting lunatic conspiracy theorists like Inhofe. But the whole basis of climate science delusionism is a conspiracy theory. It’s only by invoking a conspiracy among mainstream climate scientists that delusionists can argue that any attention should be paid to the views of a minority so tiny that even a list of 650 has to be padded out with economists, retired historians, weathercasters and lots of cranks: the number of active, regularly publishing climate scientists on the list is in the single digits.
John Quiggin 
What kind of afterbirth crap are you on about Quiggin. The only delusion being spruiked here is causation and one fact will dispel that conspiracy theory. Where is it? Cough it up or stop conspiring, alarmist.
@Tony G
If there is any climate change ‘delusion’ it is to be found in claims by the filth merchant activists that mitigation is aimed at subverting western civilization, instituting socialism or is driven by nihilistic ambition or a desire to return humans to their condition in the early holocene, while claiming it’s all a wag the dog tax grab enabled by under employed computer modellers under the sway of the Gaia credo.
That wasn’t very nice Tony. Surely the denialists have been telling us for years now that AGW is a scam cooked up by climate scientists to get their grasping mits on all those lucrative research grants. If that isn’t a claim that AGW is a conspiracy I don’t know what is.
Interesting list Prof Q. Just flicked through it entirely at random – lots of engineers, the occasional economist, and, (a highlight for me) “a researcher in science and environmental issues for the Ayn Rand Institute”. As you observed, not actually that many scientists.
Not all critics of AGW suggest that the AGW theory is a product of conspiracy. Mostly they regard advocates of AGW as suffering from delusion. So basically:-
pro-AGW thinks anti-AGW is delusional.
anti-AGW thinks pro-AGW is delusional.
Further more if the majority believe something that is not true that does not necessarily amount to a conspiracy. A conspiracy generally entails a small minority that conceals the truth from the majority. So I suppose you could be an anti-AGW who believes there is a conspiracy without believing all climate scientists are in on the scam.
Personally I’m skeptical of both the pro and anti position.
Terje, I suggest you apply your reasoning skills. Which is more likely
(a) The vast majority of scientists, including nearly all specialists on climate scientists are delusional
(b) A collection of people many of whom hold obviously delusional beliefs on a wide range of issues (Birthers, creationists, crank physicists etc) and who have strong a financial/ideological/personal stake are delusional on this issue also.
Neutrality is just another species of delusion in this case.
I have an inkling that Tony G is a close relative of Graeme Bird.
Delusion is a misunderstanding of reality. TJ is right there is delusion on both sides of the debate. The fact is atmospheric carbon is increasing, why we do not know, nor do we know what, if any effect it is having. So to push any band wagon other than the maintaining status quo at the moment based on hearsay and is delusional.
C’mon JQ, AGW is a complex set of observations, inferences and projections. If someone denied that the earth has warmed over the past 70 years, perhaps you could call that a delusion but the rest of the package leaves plenty to debate and argue with. I am not qualified, so I accept the weight of scientific opinion but I am glad that there are doubters. Things get quite dangerous – in any field – when any dissenter is shouted down. I am sure you can think of many examples in your own field.
Beyond the delusionists are the extremophiles, people whose understanding of the real world is not significantly greater than negligible. For example, Rob notes
“A piece over at New York Times online, reporting on the UK government’s plan for wind farms, produced a comment so astonishingly stupid that it ranks now even above those previously mentioned.
The comment went thus;
I am very concerned that these wind farms will affect the natural wind patterns thereby affecting weather patterns. A consensus of my friends who are scientists believe that a wind farm of this scale will shift the earth off its rotational axis and send it hurtling toward the sun in a matter of decades. Who stupid are these Brits? Don’t they realize that human actions on such a scale have worldwide consequences? Such an attempt to destroy the planet should be considered an act against humanity and declaration of war. Where is the condemnation from the UN?“.
Ken, the problem isn’t that there are AGW sceptics, but rather that they aren’t sceptics at all. Rather than intelligent knowledgable probing of the science, we get a unholy mixture of lies/delusion/ignorance/wishful thinking.
@Tony G
oops … this paragraph should not be blockquoted:
Actually, the reason atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing is well attested — it is (largely) the combustion of harvested carbon-based fuels. Not only does this convert carbon hitherto sequestered in the crust into carbon dioxide, but the Carbon 12 isotope attribute clearly distinguishes this CO2 from CO2 that is part of fluxes from terrestrial and marine biota, and other sinks.
We also note the effect that this is causing as this is realised in the increase in global temperatures over pre-industrial temperatures –(0.74degC) in the last century. This was proposed as a matter of principle by Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago and is now corroborated. To date, no other excluding hypotheses have been able to replicate as accurately the patterns of the temperature anomaly we have seen. While areas of uncertainty about the magnitude and speed of biospheric changes associated with further increases in atmospheric CO2 endure, and about the interaction of dynamic elements in the climate system, the operation of sinks, the nature and scope of feedbacks etc, the basic mechanism is not a matter of serious controversy within mainstream science.
I also want there to be doubters who put forward scientific arguments in mainstream science forums and for their arguments to be debated and to compete for acceptance, and I’m sure this happens. But much of the noise from the ‘doubters’ isn’t like this, is it? The main purveyors of dissenting view seem to be a Marc Morano mailing list, a weblog, and the occasional non-peer-reviewed pop-science book.
Ken, the question is more whether you accept the process of science or not. If the substantial number of trained people apply the scientific method to a problem and come up with a virtually unanimous result that is counter-intuitive to you, who do you trust?
There’s a point at which it’s just crazy not to trust the experts. AGW has scientific support roughly equivalent to the diabetes II and diet/exercise/stress hypothesis: not completely worked out but pretty solid science. We can’t stop people believing that diabetes is caused by evil spirits but we don’t have to listen to them any more. We don’t give them “equal time” in health policy debates.
“My opponent’s arguments are so stupid that I will not dignify them by an answer” is a common debating ploy.
Plimer’s views are not stupid – they might (probably will) turn out to be wrong but they are not ridiculous.
To me, worse and perhaps more dangerous are the people – including some scientists – who exaggerate and mislead about AGW and its consequences. Hansen is one of the worst. Penny Wong has come close to saying that unless Australia adopts her policy we will get more fires like the Victorian ones. That is of course and as I am sure she knows nonsense. Nothing that Australia does will have any measurable effect on anything. We do not matter except as a minor part of a global solution.
We can expect politicians to mislead and exaggerate – it is why most people’s opinion of politicians is so low – but it is a pity to see such aqn important issue teated in that way, especially by some scientists.
If AGW scepticism is increasing, and I think it is, it has as much to do with people’s realization that they are being fed exaggerated and misleading scare stories as it has to do with Plimer and the rest.
A great pity. This is a very important issue and should be dealt with honestly and frankly.
Here’s some sobering reading.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/get-ready-for-a-global-heatwave-20090728-e03j.html
Plimer’s views as stated in his book are absolutely ridiculous. Among many ludicrous errors, he reproduces discredited graphs from The Great Global Warming Swindle that even the producers of that disgraceful piece of fraud had abandoned.
You can get chapter and verse, including lots of scathing reviews from scientists who haven’t lost it at Deltoid.
As Ken Miles says, if there were real sceptics, the debate would be a lot different.
I love that argument that whatever Australia does it matters not – Minchin, on the last Q&A programme also used this argument.
I’ve written to the ATO asking that, as my tax receipts is a tiny fraction of the annual tax receipts, much less than our greenhouse contributions as a percentage of global emissions, that I be exempt from paying tax. $20k is just negligible.
If I’m successful, I’m switching to the delusional side – wish me luck.
DMc: Read what I wrote carefully. We should be part of global action on AGW. We should do our bit, however small. What I was rejecting were the suggestions, mostly from politicians, that somehow the Australian climate depended on what we do.
as i have said repeatedly, this debate is bull****,
there is an island of plastic floating in the pacific the size of Teaxs,
fish stocks are collapsing as huge swarms of giant jellyfish grow,
the great animal migrations are ceasing to exist,
vast ocean dead zones are increasing constantly,
toxins are being poured into the air at ever growing rates,
and yeah, CO2 is increasing
we have to change the way we are living on this planet fast,
inaccurate ‘skeptics’ like plimer are either ignorant or corrupt and are obstacles to the continuation of all life on this planet for the next few billion years,
claims of neutrality at this stage are disgraceful
you simply cannot have sustainable growth on a finite planet
JQ. I accept the critiques of Plimer, though I’d be more comfortable if they had not included Monbiot who embarrasses just about any side he joins by his extremism.
The reasons there is no good science on the sceptical side is firstly that there is no money to do it – even the energy companies won’t support it – and because it would be a career destroying move. That’s why, I believe, most of the sceptics are either retired or at the end of trheir careers: they have nothing to lose.
Let me repeat: I accept the IPCC conclusions. Like you, I am not qualified to dispute or even understand them in any detail. So I agree they should be used for policy making. But I am still uncomfortable that anyone disagreeing is torn apart. It goes further than criticism, it’s attack on character and just about everything short of their mother’s morality. That is no healthy for science or anything else.
John Quiggin – I said I was sceptical about both positions. I did not claim neutrality. I have said before, on this blog and elsewhere, that I think human emissions of CO2 are probably warming the planet. I’ve said that as a consequence I’d be willing to support a modest revenue neutral carbon tax. That is not a position of neutrality. However neither is it a position of extreme endorsement for the AGW agenda.
The sad thing is that there are loads of real sceptics out there. They are ones reading up on the scientific lit, coming up with refinements to the theory, running tests and publishing the results so the cycle keeps turning.
However the delusionist clownshow does its best to over shadow their efforts.
Ken, being a AGW sceptic hardly destroys ones career. It’s actually a pretty good path for a complete nobody to get a load of drivel published in The Australian.
That many sceptics are dinosaurs, is a fairly common occurence in science were some ossified minds can’t accept that their pet theory has fallen by the wayside.
@Ken
Sorry Ken, but if your objections above [“attack on character and just about everything short of their mother’s morality”] are a far better description of Plimer’s approach in H&E than those of his critics. They also fit the antics of the business-as-usual advocates rather better than the scientific community.
I have no problem with anyone’s ideas being torn apart, if it can be done in ways that enlighten, but this is not what ‘skeptics’ are doing. They persistently redux old debunked claims as if they had never been addressed — not to persuade scientists — since scientists know that the claims are discredited but to equip those who don’t know any better with talking points. But for their interest in business and the culture war I might deem them latter day T S Eliots arriving where they started and knowing the place for the first time, but I fear not.
One wonders, given the far greater scope for thinking the IPCC projections as optimistic, why at least some ‘skeptics’ aren’t saying that the situation could be worse. Why is so called ‘skepticism’ all about the case for doing nothing to disturb existing business interests? Why does it have the same form as the campaign in the late 70s early 80s as the campaiogn to obstruct CFC mitigation?
And indeed, if you believe the case for policy making has been made out then clearly the tenor of the attacks by the opponents of mitigation invites dismissal of any critique that is not rigorously scientific and evidence based, surely? Have they produced anything fitting this description? Not at all — and quite the opposite. They have dissembled in ways calculated to subvert public support for policy and to cause confusion and distrust — what has been dubbed FUD and slandered honest people in the process.
The animus comning their way on this basis from those of us who see this as self-serving and intellectually irrational misanthropy is thus hardly surprising.
To me, the most interesting question now is “What is the Plan B?”
There isn’t any hope that anything will come out of Copenhagen or anything else that will make a significant difference to climate change. No politician is going to inflict the necessary pain on his or her electorate. That is why Rudd is back pedalling and Obama is just delivering rhetorical flourishes and the Indian government saying go jump. Can you imagine Brown (theirs, not ours) having the courage to agree to anything difficult?
They all know that to have any effect we need to do much much more than change a few lightbulbs and build a few windmills.It would cause significant reductions in standard of living at least in the short term. Even though polls might say that the populace wants something done, they will not accept pain, or anyway, the politicians don’t have the courage to ask them to.
As several commentators have pointed out, Rudd has shown no signs so far of being willing to make the tough decisions.
So the political game is, as usual, to appear to do something without doing anything much at all.
Then, if the world does keep warming, which I accept it will, what do we do to mitigate and live with the effects?
Expect to hear politicians say “Well, it’s a pity those other countries would not follow my lead but perhaps we can manage ourselves to minimize the effects and perhaps even take advantage of them”
“being an AGW sceptic hardly destroys ones career.” Indeed not, though, as I said it does destroy one’s intellectual reputation to publish tripe like Plimer’s, or to line up with a loon like Inhofe. But the great majority on Inhofe’s list had no intellectual reputation to lose.
“The animus comning their way on this basis from those of us who see this as self-serving and intellectually irrational misanthropy is thus hardly surprising.”
OK, Fran, if that’s the way you feel. But it can’t really be called self-serving. It is not going to advance anyone’s career. Those who work or have worked in universities know well how difficult it is even to oppose the prevailing fashion in the department, be that Critical Theory or quantitative economics.
The sceptics are I believe courageous, stupidly wrong perhaps, but nevertheless courageous.
I find it laughable that “skeptics” describe themselves as “taking the fight to the man”. I’d like to see where any significant action is being taken by the “establishment” to mitigate AGW.
Ken @25
This might be next Ken.
“schemes for reengineering the climate by brute force”
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engineering
Big “stick waving” like this makes me want to give up on the delusionist rant for fear of worse solutions. I think your approach is rational but the divisions are far to deep when political means are our method of implementing climate policies. Soon it may not matter, when a psycopathic delusional billionaire decides to save the world from global warming.
Ubiquity, yeah possible, but way way down my worry list.
I’m surprised The Atlantic published that piece. More sensationalist than it usually is.
Maybe it’s rational to be deluded.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/03/beckering-belief-the-rationality-of-climate-change-denial/
john, you hold my comments for hours awaiting moderation,
it makes it hard to be part of a conversation
i have been reading and commenting for over two years here and have never been warned for bad blog etiquette nor engaged in any arguments or disputes
is this some kind of permanent probation?
Smiths – I dont think its the prof – have you upset the C@A lately? Ever been on a commie march back in the 1950s?
@Ken #25
I disagree. The US seems to be making some progress in coaxing China to a deal everyone can live with. China can’t really have the US do something that devalues the dollar holdings it has there, or disrupts demand for its output, and as a net importer of oil, it will want to keep oil prices low. So although it’s wanting to drive a hard bargain on adjustments, it will eventually ratify. Much the same goes for India as China and India both have a strong interest in getting a global deal compelling enough to stop there areas of the world suffering from serious declines in water shortage, climate change displaced persons etc. Gordon Brown is pushing the idea of a first world fund of 100billion plus to underpin the developing world avoiding following a high carbon path. And the signs these days do point to more aggressive action than was the case a couple of years back. IMO, there is the probability of a general agreement for 25% reduction by 2020 and possibly a little more than that. I note some countries — Scotland for example — are talking well above that into the mid thirties. The thing is that the first 25 is more expensive than the next 25 to implement.
re#27
I think in many cases it is self-serving. Many of these people are on the Exxon and friends payroll. Singer has been the recipient of their largesse for years — as well as big tobacco when he was pushing up against restrictions on passive smoking exposure. They have form. many of the critics are geologists — Plimer for example — and we know what most of the extractive industry people think about putting up the price of coal to users.
@Ken
I’m having trouble understanding your viewpoint ken. In one post, you are disturbed by climate scientists and politicians exaggerating the perils, and in another post, you are asking for a plan B because you dont think any significant political action and deep cuts will be forthcoming.
So which is it? Is the alleged exaggeration of climate scientists the bigger worry (because we might end up with too much unwarranted action on climate change), or is the terrible lack of political action an obvious reason for the desperation in the voices of some scientists, and a reason why the exaggeration of delusionists is a far greater problem to worry about?
actually i think it was swearing, i used the word bullsh*t in my post
i think that might have been it, sorry for the false accusation john
To confirm, smiths, coarse language is automoderated, but as long as you avoid that (and any of the forbidden WordPress words I can’t control, such as soCI@LISm) your comments should appear immediately.
What other words apart from swearing are forbidden on WordPress?
Good questions, Steve. I was making two separate but related points.
My concerns about exaggerations are that many people come to the conclusion that you can’t trust politicians to tell the truth (probably generally believed, anyway) and I think it would harm science and the standing of scientists generally for them to behave like politicians. Not a generally accepted belief, but I think science should be value free:”This is how we see things. It’s up to you what you do with it”.
I don’t believe that exaggerations will lead to too much action. The contrary in fact. Reading (to take a couple of extreme examples) Hansen and Monbiot people will and do say “it can’t be that bad”. I would not want Monbiot on my side in any fight.
I don’t believe the world will agree on any deep and serious cuts. We will see if I am right.
The delusionists, as you call them, don’t worry me. They have pretty well no political influence (yes, I know Fielding, but he isn’t the obstacle, the Opposition is and they will cave) and as I have said I admire anyone with the courage to oppose received religion.
tHat 1s @bs0lut3ly funk1n ridiclious,
i bet capitalism gets through alright
@Ken
You have smuggled in here something straight from the business-as-usual playbook — that the policy which you claim to endorse is “received religion”. This is simply the maundering of the late Michael Crichton. It is of course a piece of ad hominem directed at scientists — an assertion that their inferences are not based on rigorous science but rather, derive from something as groundless as the latest religious fashion, and which anyone can oppose with equal merit. Earlier, you claimed you had no means of assessing the science and accepted it — whereas now you imply positively that you can declare it to be unscientific and a received religion. Which is it? Are you saying that you too lack the courage to oppose received relgion and admire Fielding for the “courage” you lack? The choice of adjective too gives away the game you are playing.
“Received” here is a populist cri de coeur — an attempt to delegitimse an idea by placing social distance between ordinary folk who are possessed of authenticity and its source in the exotic insight of intellectual or political elites.
One might add that the mainstream science lacks decisive elements of a religion “received” or otherwise. There is no assertion of metaphysical causality or any non-physical entity or adduction of concept from outside measurable data.
This whole debate has left the rational a long time ago. A consensus is not a scientific term, if there is anything to prove there should be a meta analysis and that should be subject to scrutiny.
Even the best meta analysis is subject to publication bias.
And the use of colourful emotive terms such as “delusional” might suffice within tribal dialect but it is hardly evidence of science.
Oh, alright, strike “received religion” replace with “generally accepted view” or something.
I don’t admire Fielding or any politician. I do admire scientists who have the courage to swim against the prevailing tide.
Surely you would worry if any sets of beliefs: quantum physics or evolution by natural selection or Keynesian economic theory (all of which I accept, by the way) would become so “received” as the truth that it is not legitimate to challenge them?
Golly, I’m done.
rog
“if there is anything to prove there should be a meta analysis and that should be subject to scrutiny. ”
I think that might have been called the IPCC report – perhaps you are unaware of its existence ?
2009 and wow we are stilling having a debate about whether or not the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropomorphic or not. To the doubters, where do they think the tonnes of carbon released every day by our consumption of fossil fuels go? These rather scarey ppl and other like minded individuals seem to think a dramatic shift in weather patterns in a world of 6 billion plus is ok.
From my very limited perspective I am extremely sceptical about the capacity to mitigate worldwide crop failures or the outbreak of more tropical diseases. I would love to be wrong and I’m sure most people hope like hell that the ice caps don’t melt but based on the amount of evidence supporting global warming from carbon emissions, you really have to wonder why we are still having these sorts of debates and why we aren’t taking some serious action. There can’t be that many people with shares in oil and coal surely?
“Surely you would worry if any sets of beliefs: quantum physics or evolution by natural selection or Keynesian economic theory (all of which I accept, by the way) would become so “received” as the truth that it is not legitimate to challenge them?”
There’s no problem challenging any of these views on the basis of scientific research, and Keynesian economics was subject to some fairly successful challenges in the 60s and 70s. But challenging them on the basis of crank monetary or physics theories, creationism or just plain ideological hackery is not legitimate. The vast majority of “sceptics” on climate change are in the latter class.
that would be these world crop failures
Bulgarian farmers had harvested around 30% of the nation’s wheat crop … around 20% lower than last season’s output.
Around 92% of the nation’s barley has been cut … 16% down on last year’s crop of 900,000 MT.
Brazil, the world’s third largest wheat importer, bought 51,000 MT of US wheat last week, that’s more US wheat than it bought in the entire first six months of the year … Brazil’s normal favoured wheat supplier is Argentina, but they of course have had a disastrous 2008 crop
The President of Agrarian Chamber of Ukraine, says that the harvest will only produce 35 MMT of grain this season. [35 percent less than last year]
According to the Russian Agricultural Ministry 3.3 million hectares of the nation’s spring crops have been badly damaged by drought.
The Spanish agriculture ministry has revised down this year’s wheat and barley production estimates … Wheat output (excluding durum) is now projected 32% lower this year … This season’s barley crop is now forecast at 7.5 MMT, compared to the previous forecast of 8.6 MMT, which is 33% down from the 11.3 MMT harvested last year.
The likelihood of weak monsoon rains, crucial for kharif output in India, is causing great worry to farmers, media and policymakers. Rainfall is improving but three-fourth of the country has so far received scanty or deficient rains. The key foodgrain producing states — Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, UP, MP and Himachal Pradesh — are worst hit. The situation has become so bad that MP sought to be declared a drought affected state …
India warned Friday that patchy monsoon rains were threatening its lifeline rice crop and said it would ban food exports as part of a plan to prevent any crisis.
More than a million hectares of Romanian wheat and rye have already been damaged by drought as the country braces itself for a forecast very dry June.
Early estimates for grain production in the state of Western Australia in 2009 are for output of 8-11 MMT, between 10-35% lower than the 12.3 MMT produced last year, according to the region’s monopoly grain storage facility Cooperative Bulk Handling.
In what is becoming a familiar weekly ritual the Buenos Aires Grain Exchange has revised down its 2009 soybean crop estimate for Argentina to 32.0 MMT from 32.2 MMT a week earlier … That’s a reduction of 30.7% on last year and 36% down on the 50 MMT originally hoped for this season.
but hey, who needs food right, we can eat 1’s and 0’s eh?
JQ,
Do you think that there are any cranks etc on the pro AGW side? I would feel a lot more comfortable if I saw AGWers challenging the more implausible and unsubstantiated claims from their own side. When they don’t I draw inferences about how critically they evaluate the rest of the evidence.
Fran Barlow @ 11 said;
Considering Carbon-12 is the most abundant of the two stable isotopes of the element carbon, accounting for 98.89% of carbon; It’s hard to believe it can even murkily distinguish one bit of the 98.89% of carbon from the other 98.89%.
And
;
Considering the age of the pre-industrial Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) You’d think you would be able to find that there were many periods in pre-industrial times when the temperature was (0.74degC) more than it is now. (if you cant find a pre-industrial period when the earth was hotter than it is now you are lying)
As I said, one fact will dispel the AGW conspiracy theory. We are only asking for one; one is not to much to ask for, just one fact that categorical proves that the increase in carbon IS warming the planet?
@6 Sorry for sounding like Graeme Bird, I must have been reading Jennifer’s blog to much.