Wasting energy on climate change sceptics

By Greg Jericho

It's a pity that climate change scientists have to spend so much time debunking falsehoods - especially when those spouting them have already made their minds up, writes Greg Jericho.

This time of the year often brings with it news on climate change. Partly this is because the various agencies recording global temperatures are releasing their annual measures, and partly because invariably we have some pretty hot weather here in Australia.

This year the quirk amidst the usual plethora of reporting and opinion pieces has been the response to an op-ed by the chair of Tony Abbott's "Advisory Council", Maurice Newman.

Newman usually pops up on opinion pages or in speeches to variously decry the pay of those on minimum wage; rail against wind farms because they are, among other things, "a danger to human health"; or attack climate change.

Now, he's not exactly Robinson Crusoe when it comes to writing about how climate change is all a bit a myth. Heck, it's almost a prerequisite if you wish to get a regular gig excreting your thoughts over the pages of the News Corp dailies.

Of course News Corp's head Rupert Murdoch once said we should "give the planet the benefit of the doubt", but the point of his utterly meaningless phrase is really just to allow his columnists, journalists and editors to repeat it in an attempt to suggest it balances out the avalanche of distorted (or completely wrong) information which lands on their pages.

It's to be expected though that editors and faux rational opinion writers tackle climate change. After all, they, like those who work for think-tanks such as the IPA, know it is in their financial interests to deny the science. It's as good for readership as it is good for raising donations from mining companies. And besides, you can't spend all your time pretending you care about free speech.

But when the person writing such ignorant piffle is the head of a select group of people appointed to give advice to the Prime Minister, it does perhaps behove us to treat his muttering as more than just clickbait. If only his opinions were worthy of such treatment.

After all, as Newman makes quite clear, he is "not a climate scientist", and we would all be much better off listening to experts.

The difficulty with responding to such amateur climate-change commentators is you have to parse every sentence for accuracy. For example, Newman starts his argument stating he has "closely followed this debate for more than two decades, having been seasoned originally by the global cooling certainty of the 1970s".

Alas, that "certainty" amounted to http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 10 per cent* of all published scientific articles on climate change from 1956 to 1979. This compared to 62 per cent of such articles during that period predicting warming, with the rest taking no position.

If he thinks 10 per cent is certainty, I can't wait till Mr Newman discovers the 97 per cent support for global warming that now exists among climate scientists (or the 99.8 per cent support found in another survey).

But no. We all know that won't sway the "sceptical".

Far better instead to talk about how he really does "believe in climate change" (natural change that is).

The deniers of the science always like to suggest the issue of climate change is too much like a religion - that it's all about "belief". In reality, they are the one most linking religion to the debate - usually by suggesting their opponents are "zealots".

Do I believe in climate change? Sure, in the same way I believe Australia is a better cricket team than England at the moment based on the fact we have beaten the absolute bejeezus out of them in both Tests and one day games this summer. Just because I might use the word "believe" doesn't make my view a religious one.   

Newman doesn't rely only on faith either. He notes the "dispassionate" work of Dr Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Unfortunately, Mr Newman neglected to mention that the week before he wrote his piece, Dr Spencer announced the UAH measurement of global temperatures found 2013 was the fourth hottest year since 1978.

Ahh well. Next year perhaps.

[continued ...]

'Temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research:

    …there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…

    In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…

    The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

    The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven…

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of…

The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the …  Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster… It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.'

http://www.thegwpf.org/gareth-paltridge-global-warming-pause-destroy-reputation-science/

From the original story posted in Quadrant=

'The World Meteorological Organisation of the United Nations took its first steps towards establishing the World Climate Program in the early 1970s. Among other things it held a conference in Stockholm to define the main scientific problems to be solved before reliable climate forecasting could be possible. The conference defined quite a number, but focused on just two.

The first concerned an inability to simulate the amount and character of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds are important because they govern the balance between solar heating and infrared cooling of the planet, and thereby are a control of Earth’s temperature. The second concerned an inability to forecast the behaviour of oceans. Oceans are important because they are the main reservoirs of heat in the climate system. They have internal, more-or-less random, fluctuations on all sorts of time-scales ranging from years through to centuries. These fluctuations cause changes in ocean surface temperature that in turn affect Earth’s overall climate.

The situation hasn’t changed much in the decades since. Many of the problems of simulating the behaviour of clouds and oceans are still there (along with lots of other problems of lesser moment) and for many of the same reasons. Perhaps the most significant is that climate models must do their calculations at each point of an imaginary grid of points spread evenly around the world at various heights in the atmosphere and depths in the ocean. The calculations are done every hour or so of model time as the model steps forward into its theoretical future. Problems arise because practical constraints on the size of computers ensure that the horizontal distance between model grid-points may be as much as a degree or two of latitude or longitude—that is to say, a distance of many tens of kilometres.'

'The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.'

extracts: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-ch
ange/

I suggest a read of the full article.

By the way what is the attribution to your quote?

go Quadrant 

So Catmando is a veterinarian?

lee wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:


There is lots of segmented trends that you can cherry pick from the data set but its clear what the general trend is and what is driving it.

Your lunacy can only lead to your own cerebral impotency

lee wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:
Is that what he said? Is that what Watts said he said?

# wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 2:03pm:


Well no, there isn't a 'conspiracy' in the classic sense. Read the full text of the article lee link, the author puts it very well. It's simply human nature working.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 2:10pm:

Is that really the way human nature works?

The Trenberth and Fasullo 2013 can be found here-

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full

In the conclusion he references Kosaka and Xie (2013)-

'Yet they were able to reproduce many aspects of the observed changes from 1970 to 2012, including the changes in global mean temperature and the recent pause in warming,'

My bold
  Kosaka and Xie is a paper on the PDO.

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:
Have I? Where?

I don't claim to know anything about climate science. For me, the only cogent facts are that the vast majority of the best qualified have a consensus opinion and no organisation of reputable scientists disagrees.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:00pm:
Nah, just the same bloke who's had the denysosphere all agog recently, playing up the uncertainty that nobody's denying and cherry-picking as usual. I'll stick with the vast majority of the best qualified, at least until one organisation of reputable scientists disagrees with them.

# wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:


No, climate scientists went from being ordinary drone researchers 'that guy in the lab down hall' sort of thing, to basic rock stars of the science world that everyone wants to talk to, and that heads of government listen, to pretty much overnight. Suddenly they are getting offered more money in one grant than they'd received in decades, plus all expenses paid invitations to dinners, symposiums and conferences in exotic places all around the world. Of COURSE that's going to have an effect on them, and if they didn't want it to continue, they'd need to locked in a rubber room for their own safety..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

Where is that fruitloop emoticon when you need it 

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:
<sigh>
To paraphrase Chimp:

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 3:17pm:
You're sounding a little shrill there, lee. 

From the UK Met Office, bastion of warming. 

'It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming
solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Observations of ocean heat content and of sea -  level rise suggest that the additional heat from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been absorbed in the ocean and has not been manifest as a rise in  surface temperature. Changes in the exchange of heat between the  upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role.

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much  smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:
Via which denialist blog? I simply don't have the time, patience or knowledge to figure out the misinterpretation.

I won't live long enough to chase down every wild goose you come up with. Suffice it to say that the consensus remains, along with the support of every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:
Do learn to use the Insert Hyperlink button.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

Disingenuous is what disingenuous does! Still hating the kids ay fella!! 

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:45am:


Not a rant, just a synopsis of the behaviour of people in general and in research science in particular.

And yes I probably can substantiate it, but why bother, you'll just deny, denigrate or ignore any articles/websites or evidence I use as you always do when challenged.

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right. Scientific history is chock full of examples of the "vast majority" turning out to be completely wrong.
Pythagoras, Galileo, Darwin etc.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:


Not as much as it seems to get to you....I know it's incorrect and that only the AGW Faithful believe it, so the only thing it 'does' to me is make me laugh.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:30am:
But the sources of your misrepresentations are, aren't they? You haven't the qualifications to understand most of what you post. Clearly, you post what you've been led to from some other source. Be honest, post your true source.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:
Can you substantiate that belief or is it just your faith?

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:
On that, we disagree.

Your evasiveness is revealing enough.

I'm not qualified to give authoritative commentary. I'll leave that to muso.

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:


Sure I can. I don't see it that way. So that disproves Cook's opinion. Simply wasn't it.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:03pm:
The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he does not know. - Confucius

I've learned the pitfalls of commenting outside my field. Evidently, you have not.

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:25pm:


Yes Galileo and Darwin were arguing against the religious 'vast majority' opinion, and I was referring to Pythagoras' discovery or announcement that the Earth was not a flat disk floating on the ocean, which was the consensus opinion up to that time.

As for your question about right or wrong. No right/wrong are not the only two options. They 'could be' almost right, or half right or have it totally backwards. It's entirely conceivable that there is some as yet undiscovered, or overlook process at work. And please, don't immediately respond with a 'no, they know everything' argument...

'The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he does not know. - Confucius'

I admit there are those who know more than I. I even admit it when I'm wrong.

'I've learned the pitfalls of commenting outside my field. Evidently, you have not.'

You have a field? Is it fallow?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:
As far as I can tell, the only one to mention "infallibility" here is you. Come to think of it, you behave as if the term applies to your lunatic fringe.

OK, so you've conceded that "right" and "wrong" are not the only options. You seem to be stuck, however, in a delusion that only the majority is fallible.

Climate Science is complex. It's unlikely that anyone is totally "right" or totally "wrong". That said, the lunatic fringe seems to be trying hard to achieve the latter. Which then, is most "right"?

For some reason that you're unable to articulate, you believe that the fringe must be "right". In my experience, the majority is probably most "right" (or least "wrong"). If they weren't, would they still be the majority?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:


What parts of the scripture that underpins your religious cult is supported by peer reviewed scientific evidence and scientific theory?

Your assignment is due April 15 2015

good luck PASTOR Gizmo

# wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 3:26pm:

Your argument that AGW is probably real, based on "most people say it is".



# wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 3:26pm:

Absolutely: "sometimes" it is.

And sometimes it's better to do one's own thinking, rather than letting others do it for you.

You see, #, 'sometimes' is not 'always'.  There'a a valuable lesson for you, free of charge.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 4:19pm:



This is quite possibly one of the funniest (and most ironic) statements you've ever made.

Most entertaining.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 4:24pm:

greg has his knickers in a knot  Still hating the unborn for some reason  I call it jealousy 

What did greggy miss out on 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 3:58pm:
Is that what I argue?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 3:58pm:
When is that "sometimes"?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2014 at 1:37pm:


Using my material now are we Pastor Gizmo?

You make my point EXACTLY - Denialiists have common trait of not being able to think for themselves. Its an insult to couple your deranged religious lunacy with the credible approach of scepticism (a trait that actually underpins science itself)

It is funny to watch you clowns self destruct in public using your own lack of coherence, intelligence and ability to think rationally and sceptically.

Now go away and do some homework, before entering this debate and cluttering it with BS and innate ignorant spin....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 4:55am:


...unfortunately the environment is normally classed as some sort of dumping ground, a sink, and infinite resource etc, by the so called modern society.

A society which is almost entirely run as a quasi corporate capitalist system.

Short term profits

individualism

materialism

disposability

waste

etc

Nothing else matters. You only need to look at two nations to observe this in its grandest form. The USA and China are both quasi-capitalist systems that are underpinned and protected by the population.

The difference is trivial. The USA being a Corporately run quasi-capitalist system, whilst China is a State run quasi-capitalist system.

Both lead to the same self destructive outcomes.

It will take a total rethinking of the current economic and social paradigm for there to be genuine change. And usually with these major rethinks, there is great upheaval and human suffering

We must never question the wealth of the top 85 people in the world who control more than half the wealth.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 6:40pm:



Attack everything I say... 

Capitalism is merely an economic model - often confused as a political ideology.

Corporatism is what's causing most of the major problems in the west in particular. Corporatism is a form of fascism or totalitarianism.

China = quasi-capitalist system run by the state
USA = quasi-capitalist system run by corporations

Both are un-democratic and totalitarian in nature

the differences between the two systems are trivial

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 12:51pm:


The tools used to create a largely subservient and numbed down population is FEAR, LIES and in some cases violence.

That's how fascism operates

The three major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century were



And Corporatism is the most insidious and all pervasive totalitarian blanket ever woven in Human history

# wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 7:45pm:


We don't live in a democracy. It's not an American term. Its an Ancient Greek concept. Demos (citizen) kratia (state).

In other words the citizenry control the state. I don't know of one example in the world today where this is the case.

Australia is similar to most other western nations - a Oligarchical Corporcratic society with a mixed economical model foundation. Quasi fascist is nature?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:29am:


It's all clear as a bell now