Clive Hamilton, the Australian “public intellectual”, and failed Greens candidate is a busy man: leave no ad hominem unsaid, no law of logic unbroken. The man has a predictable formula. Rule one: Make an unsubstantiated claim; cast aspersions on all who so much as question it — dig deep for an attempted character assassination if possible; then top it off with feigned moral indignation mixed with grandiose generalizations. It helps to toss in some strawman conspiracies, and confound it with unrelated topics. Rule two: never discuss the evidence.
The Australian newspaper: MP’s obligation is to the planet
Hamilton was trying to guilt trip and intimidate the independent parliamentarians in Australia (who will probably announce their decision tomorrow about who will form government). Almost everything he says is based on a bluff.
The danger of climate change towers over all other influences on the security and health of future generations, yet the Liberal Party and the Nationals are run by people who reject the vast body of scientific evidence that proves it.
Can’t one journalist just ask Hamilton to name the scientific paper that we “deniers” deny? Something that shows carbon dioxide has a major effect on our climate (ie. more than 1.2 degrees?) [See this post for more info on the kind of paper that Clive can’t name.]
The Coalition stands in the way of what must be done if we are to have a chance of avoiding, or even being ready for, a world less sympathetic to the flourishing of life.
Hamilton’s target is Tony Abbott (leader of the opposition), but Hamilton can’t really do the character assassination attempt on Abbott, so he goes for the assassination-by-association, and derides Abbott for even meeting a skeptic. Imagine the sin. Tony Abbott actually was in the same room as Christopher Monckton.
…Tony Abbott who, alone among the world’s political leaders, agreed to meet eccentric sceptic Christopher Monckton. Abbott gave a sympathetic hearing to a fantasist…
I’ll let Christopher Monckton answer that himself below. (Thanks to reader Malcolm H who wrote to Monckton and shared his reply to The Australian, which as far as I can tell, they chose not to publish.)
Christopher Monckton writes:
Clive Hamilton in the Weekend Australian (28 August) seeks to justify his apocalyptic vision of manmade climate catastrophe by a malevolent personal attack on me. The science behind his “facts” is incorrect.
He foresees “a sea-level rise of nearly 1 m”: yet the IPCC, which had previously taken 1 m as its high-end estimate of sea-level rise by 2100, has cut it to 59 cm (central estimate just 43 cm). Sea level is rising at only 20-30 cm/century. There has been no appreciable acceleration in 150 years.
He talks of Australia’s forest fires and “dwindling water supplies”, but avoids mentioning the recent heavy rains or Australia’s desert climate. A former governor-general whom I met in Canberra has one solution to that: reverse the 50,000 years of deforestation in Australia, moistening the climate.
Mr. Hamilton says that in 20 years the world will be “dominated by the appalling consequences of ‘global warming’”. James Hansen told the US Congress just that 20 years ago, but his lurid forecast of extreme warming did not prove accurate. There has been little “global warming” this millennium.
Last week, at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies in Sicily, I heard presentations from several researchers – each using different methods –showing that the warming from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration will be just 1 °C, not the 3.3 °C the IPCC imagines.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, who knows more about the atmosphere than anyone, showed that the IPCC’s computer models incorrectly predict 1-3% more evaporation in response to 1 °C warming. Measured increase in evaporation is 5.7%. The IPCC has thus tripled true “climate sensitivity” – the warming to be expected from any radiative forcing, such as more CO2.
Dr. Nir Shaviv studied the extensive scientific literature indicating that fluctuations in the radiation from the Sun are 5-6 times more influential than the IPCC had thought. He, too, concluded that a CO2 doubling would cause a harmless 1 C° of warming.
I reported that the IPCC’s methods “predicted” that measured radiative forcings from all major greenhouse gases should have caused 1.5 °C warming from 1950-2005. Only 0.6 °C happened. Whichever way you look at it, the IPCC has greatly over-egged the pudding. Without the exaggeration, there is no problem.
Finally, no true scientist would attack the man rather than his argument. Mr. Hamilton says the only political leader who will meet me is Tony Abbott. Last week I met the Italian Defence Minister, who received a standing ovation from the world’s scientists in Sicily after a fine speech advocating a return to scientific rigour. He said spending on “global warming” was pointless.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, regularly quotes my climate research with approval. Margaret Thatcher, whom I had originally advised that “global warming” needed to be watched, has changed her mind, as have I.
Mr. Hamilton accuses me of “a conspiracy theory about the imminent imposition of a communist world government”. Yet the (fortunately-defeated) September 15 2009 draft of what was to have been the Treaty of Copenhagen proposed an unelected world “government”, with sweeping powers to end the free market and to impose worldwide taxation without representation as well as centralized environmental and economic controls. See Annex 1, paras. 36-38, at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org.
Mr. Hamilton adds that, in saying I have invented a potential broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases, I am a “fantasist”. It is a pity that he devoted no more care to checking his facts about me than about climate. Search for “Monckton” at the UK Patent Office, www.ipo.gov.uk. Patents have indeed been lodged. Our researches continue. It is not I but Mr. Hamilton who is a fantasist. “Global warming” is a non-problem, and the correct solution to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing, and address the real environmental problems of the world instead.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
…
The only problem with Christopher’s well informed reply is that it almost looks like Hamilton was discussing evidence, but the one paragraph about sea-level rise and bush-fires was it.
So what can poor Clive do when he doesn’t actually know much about the science he so passionately, devoutly endorses? He can get breathlessly excited with wild speculation about how all his favored authorities couldn’t possibly be wrong in a kind of proof-by-sheer-unbelievability:
The Monckton-Minchin conspiracy must have been joined by thousands of scientists in universities and research bodies across the world, including CSIRO and our Bureau of Meteorology, who must be systematically falsifying their research results. And every scientific academy, along with dozens of Nobel laureates, has been sucked in. The Pentagon, which has been warning of the grave threat to security posed by global warming, must have joined the conspiracy. And so must our defence forces, which are making plans for a world affected by climate change.
His naivety is quaint. No one needs a conspiracy to explain the modern version of a scare-the-masses-to-get-rich scheme. It’s been going on for millenia. Anything that isn’t explained by greed can be put down to incompetence, especially by the kind of people who fawningly “believe” in authority and assume that some scientists are Gods.
The biggest fear of all Greens — to be mocked
Hamilton saved his most convincing reasoning for last. Basically, the truly devastating outcome is not about the climate at all; it’s not that people might go hungry, or marmots have smaller families, or sea shells might break, but something far far worse. If the Coalition won … the skeptics would rejoice (holy mother of g…) and, wait for it, Australia would be laughed at (by Clive’s friends overseas). UN-thinkable!
It is inconceivable that they could install the first government in the Western world run by climate deniers, a development that climate-change sceptics across the world would greet as a great victory.
In the US, Tea Party activists who reject climate science and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or the devil would rejoice. Republican senator James Inhofe, who wants criminal charges laid against climate scientists, would find friends in Canberra. The army of cyber-bullies* who send abuse and death threats to esteemed scientists would feel vindicated. Monckton would become our prime minister’s favourite adviser.
Are the three independents willing to take responsibility for making Australia a laughing-stock?
Other posts mentioning Clive Hamilton:
*The global gullibles shift to high gear smear (My reply to his cyber bullies rant earlier this year).
A letter to parents who are not gullible
Carbon trading: not such a vote winner, eh?
Thanks to Christopher Monckton and reader Malcolm H.
H/t to Axel for spotting the patent office URL was incorrect.
Not to sound rude Jo, but wouldn’t life be dull without the likes of Clive. He gives you so much ammunition and presents such a large target.
The shame is that so many are ready to take his word on scientific subjects without doing any research of their own, or the press fails to ask for the unquestionable evidence before giving him unfettered space in their publications.
10
Chuckle!
What else can one do in response to such raving mania?
10
Jo
The most worrying thing about Clive Hamilton is not that he is actually published but that some people in high places take him seriously. My question for today is: Out of Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott who will give the most credence to Hamilton?
10
I don’t take ethical advice from someone who cheapens the holocaust for a cheap political sound byte
I don’t take scientific advice from a failed intellectual
I don’t take philosophical advice from people who cannot even construct a valid argument
I don’t take political advice from a failed politician
So, Clive “you’re a denier” hamilton, is utterly irrelevant.
10
[…] here to see the original: Hamilton rages on « JoNova // Hamilton rages on « JoNova taxation without representation post online above is […]
10
Hamilton is a Professor of Ethics. Is it ethical to malign some-one on false information? Is it ethical to misquote science?
10
This TS Eliot quote is directly cut & pasted from Scepticlawyer with no apologies (but much gratitude):-
Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.
They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
(From The Cocktail Party, T.S. Eliot)
Clive clearly could do some humility.
10
Same old, same old from Clive, directed it his same old band of unthinking followers and anyone else who’ll listen.
Fact is though that the need for practising journalists to have an opinion can usually be recognised as just that by most intelligent readers. The thing with he, and his ilk at the Guardian, is we know just what their opinion is going to be, and there’s very little by way on enlightenment in any of it.
Surprise us Clive.
10
Its not warmin!!
Someone said to me it is warm see http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl
But I says IT DEPENDS!! !@! cause stats can be missleadjing.
If you read the graph from right to left then ITS COOING!
HAHA TAKE THAT WARMISTST! WE ARE HEADEDED FOR AN ICE AGE! HAHAHA
10
pattoh:
September 7th, 2010 at 7:38 am
That is an incredibly fair & perceptive perspective on what is going on.
10
A great job by you and Christopher Monckton. But did Hamilton’s nonsense (for that is what it is) really need dignifying by a reasoned and measured response? It just adds oxygen to the fire of publicity – and that’s the only thing that’s important to people like Hamilton.
The worst thing for him would be to be completely ignored…
Simon
ACM
10
The saddest thing is that people like Clive get any publicity at all. For many years the “preachers” and “the end is nigh” folk were left to peddle their ideas on street corners and obscure meetings of the faithful, but this latest generation of journalists seem to have elevated them to newsworthy status. Why is that?
10
Christopher Monckton has not been known to call for the suspension of Democracy, even after the same Democracy took away his hereditary seat in the House of Lords.
Seems clear who is the fanatic around here.
None of them.
Oakeshott already was an AGW supporter and doesn’t seem interested in going beyond whatever the government appointed mainstream science tells him to think. Katter and Windsor long ago became cynical about the political process and are mainly interested in cutting deals for their country electorates.
Media publish Hamilton in the hope of drumming up some controversy.
10
I agree with Simon. Clive joined the ranks of the safely ignorable (eg Gore, the late Schneider, Lambert et al) ages ago.
10
Unfortunately, the uninformed or gullible masses are going to believe the quick sound-bite or news heading from people like Hamilton. They won’t be taking the time to read Monckton’s rebuttal. There’s still a lot of capital to be gained from the billions of global propaganda dollars already spent over the years on this fraud. There’s still a lot of seats available on the gravy train.
10
Hami….whatever and his whole panic supply group may be out of fashion soon. Look near the bar code. The use by date is up:
The label on the new packets of panic read like this:
“A new Ice Age could kill 2/3 of the human race in the first year in a rapid onset,” says Dr. Deagle. “A slower onset would likely kill close to this number but simply take a handful of years.! Thank you BP; thank you President Obama, the lies and the dispersants were just great. Now if you could just direct all that hot air to the right places maybe we can avoid a icy hell in our near future.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/BP_oil_spill_driving_us_into_an_ice_age-I_do_not_buy_it.htm
10
I am always leery of self-styled “public intellectuals”. Looking for more information about Hamilton, the “public intellectual” led me to that internet version of a public intellectual, Wikipedia, where there is a lengthy entry on the subject that surprisingly confirms my suspicions. Just one passage as an example:
‘Richard Posner [Judge, US Court of Appeals ..] concentrates his criticism on “academic public intellectuals”; claiming their declarations to be untidy and biased in ways which would not be tolerated in their academic work. Yet he fears that independent public intellectuals are in decline. Where writing on the academic public intellectual Posner finds that they are only interested in public policy, not with public philosophy, public ethics or public theology, and not with matters of moral and spiritual outrage. Their input has come to be on hard-headed policy questions, rather than values. He also sees a decline in their factual accuracy, linked to a reliance on qualitative and fallible reasoning.’
Describes Hamilton precisely, I think.
Academics are rich in hubris (I should know, I was one for 16 years) and those who declare themselves “public intellectuals” have more than most; humility and an ability to say, “I don’t know” are not in their make up.
In popular vernacular, “public intellectuals” are “up themselves”. Hamilton is a supreme example. I just do not understand how he is employed by any self-respecting university and I pity his students.
10
clive is upset that ABC is biased against CAGW!
so here is clive on ABC, with their millionth argument for CAGW this year, complete with clive’s usual insults:
3 Sept: ABC Drum Unleashed: Balance-bias battle of climate science coverage
While uncertainties remain and the evidence will evolve, the level of consensus on the main tenets of climate science is unusually high…
The fact that climate denialists, invariably linked to right-wing think tanks with an axe to grind, have succeeded in their explicit and widely-known strategy of confusing the public by casting doubt on the science should not be a reason for providing greater coverage to anti-scientific opinions. Indeed, one would have thought it within the ABC’s charter to correct public misunderstanding, notwithstanding that the corporation’s chairman shares those misunderstandings…
While The Australian has been for years the principal agent in this country of the Republicans’ war on climate science, the ABC has been engaged in a strategic retreat, leaving scientists isolated on the battle field. As a result, the scientific community – always slow to react, due to its natural inhibitions – is now expressing grave concern at the erosion of the ‘intellectual and moral authority of Australian science’…
One does not expect Alan Jones to understand the scientific research process and the role of peer-review – but we do expect the ABC to be more sophisticated, notwithstanding its chairman’s intellectual crudeness.
Rather than being rebuked by Maurice Newman for ‘group-think’, those in the organisation who understand how science works should be invited to explain to senior managers like Kim Dalton and Mark Scott that when the hard evidence is overwhelming, insisting on ‘balance’ can only contribute to public ignorance.
This is an extract from the author’s article ‘Appeasing climate denial at the ABC’ published in the current issue of Overland.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3001949.htm
putrid stuff, clive.
10
There’s something about reading Clive’s work that always leaves me feeling a bit nauseated—as if I just gorged on 400grams of dark chocolate, washing it down with a couple of liters of warm stout.
Rich stuff!
No need to read any further. That line says it all. It’s something we can all look back upon in 2020 and have a good laugh at. Ah, the innocent, good old days of 2010, weren’t we such gullible kids back then! Thanks for the moment of levity, Clive.
Why would a “public intellectual” write stuff that guarantees his legacy will be about as relevant to future history as the long forgotten intellectuals who hailed phrenology and eugenics as the great scientific breakthroughs of their age? As Rudd might say – Clive is the greatest moral clown of our age!
Clive’s work is puerile demagoguery, a kind of burlesque exhibition of the bigotry, prejudice, meanness and wilful blindness of our inner-city, so-called intelligentsia. Of course, as a record of the irrational fetishes of our age, Clive’s work will receive some minor footnotes in the work of future cultural historians studying the decline of Western civilization.
Ironically, it’s also why he is so loved by those who are so morally superior to us mere mortals. He supplies them with an absurdly pornography dialectic to mentally masturbate over their morning latte. As with all fetish, obscene or otherwise, a reasonable depiction of reality is not the point.
10
What a pity Monckton wasn’t allowed a reply to this silly fantasist.
Don’t forget SBS Insight tonight at 7.30 when Schneider and Karoly try to convince 50+ sceptics about CAGW.
10
The Pentagon, which has been warning of the grave threat to security posed by global warming, must have joined the conspiracy.
That is funny. The US Defense Dept was ordered by Pres. B. “Joyce Foundation” Obama to consider climate change. All the Dept does is accept IPCC scare stats, it does not judge their reliability.
10
I have recently read that none of Australia’s universities rank among the top 170 worldwide.
There are a number of reasons for this disgrace (perhaps the rough guide of the number of courses with “Studies” in their titles was a measure!), but surely there would be few places overseas which would employ someone of Hamilton’s calibre as a professor.
It beggars belief that Australia has to be lumbered with such people in what should be institutions of excellence. Visions of West Coast mail order “universities” come to mind when I read of Hamilton’s grasp of climate science. That this person can generate publicity about himself by his ludicrous dabbling in a discipline for which he has no expertise in the slightest should greatly worry his employer.
10
From Last nights Q&A;
JESSICA BRAUDE: If it takes this long to form a government, how long is it going to take to pass legislation?
TONY JONES: Let’s hear from Christine Milne on that?
CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, I think you will have negotiation on the floor of the house instead of in back rooms with lobbyists and governments who can actually treat the parliament as a rubber stamp and so you’re going to end up with better legislation because of it. There is no doubt when you get everybody around a table and you get an inclusive process and you get everybody’s points of view, you get a better outcome. So, yes, negotiation around legislation will take a while, but you’ll get a better reflection of the views of Australia than you get from a majority government working in a backroom with lobbyists from whichever sector it is.
And here I am panicking if the three amigos side with a Labor/Green government, and we get the proposed new climate committee as apposed to Joolya’s climate assembly of 150 citizens, here in Milne’s own words she’s saying and I repeat her quote above “There is no doubt when you get everybody around a table and you get an inclusive process and you get everybody’s points of view, you get a better outcome”.
10
Sorry, butter fingers me hit the submit key before finishing. I was going to ask can she be trusted. We should all cut and paste that quote and send it to her and point out her hypocrisy when it comes to the selection of HER climate committee.
10
So then Hamilton and all rest rest of you shills (you know who you are) again criticise Monckton for having a fake patenet. Yet NONE OF YOU LOOKED. Nobody commented on Monckton’s deliberate mistake !
The website of the UK Patent Office is NOT as he stated:
“www.ukipo.gov.uk” , but in point of fact it IS http://www.ipo.gov.uk/
Maybe it wasn’t a mistake, so much as a lapsus calami. After all Monckton is a senior figure in the UKIP Political party ?
See my website linked to my name, for a whole page on Monckton Shenanigans, and to see a warmists arguments utterly and comprehensively destroyed, in a fashion which is both horrifying and exquisite.
10
The opening paragraph of a specially commissioned 1974 CIA report on the threat posed by the settled science of global cooling. (The ‘neo-boreal era’ corresponds to the Little Ice Age)
10
Why bother to point out the flaws in Hamiltons articles? Why – because he gets printed in The Australian, and is all over the ABC. The real question is why any masthead thinks his writing is worth repeating, but won’t use space to print say, McIntyre, Watts or Lindzen.
It’s all very well to say we can ignore him, but while Editors don’t see through his baseless speculation, we need to keep knocking them down.
I’m hoping that it’s arming skeptics with tools to knock other un-thinkers.
PS: Thanks to Axel for spotting the patent office URL was incorrect. It’s fixed.
10
Nothing will change until the MSM follows its heart to the money . This will only happen with the realization that they are on the wrong horse & it is breaking down ( to be humanely destroyed).
I won’t hold my breath, but a whole new dictionary in weasel-words is somewhere in the offing.
10
The UNTHUNKERS ARE DONE FOUR!!!
KATTER IS ON OUR SIDE , VICKTOREY IS OURS!! !!@!!
10
Right turn Clive.
10
Marvelous response from Chris Monckton. Clive Hamilton really needs to refresh his understanding of the scientific method, and look at the data before he next puts his foot in his mouth (I wince recalling his effort in New Scientist a few weeks ago).
Data will embarass those who make up wild stories, which Clive seems prone to do and which Chris Monckton does not.
10
“In the US, Tea Party activists who reject climate science and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or the devil would rejoice.”
Tea Party people (are not activists) don’t actually reject climate science, they reject the 1,000+ page Cap & Trade bill and the unproven and discredited hypothesis that man’s CO2 emissions are responsible for runaway global warming. They don’t want the country bankrupted by more Obama mismanagement, waste and taxes. Further Hamilton has his facts wrong when he states that Tea Party people believe Obama is a Muslim. In fact is about 17% of all American’s (not Tea Partyers, as no specific survey was done on that) believe he is, but the majority of people have no idea what Obama’s religion is because Obama is confusing the shit out of everyone. The only thing most Americans know about Obama is that he is a Marxist Socialist.
Hamilton, you’re a dick.
10
Yes you are right Donald at 27, there are no Australian Universities in the top 170
It is No surprise given the calibre of the thinking displayed by Lewandowski and this idiot Hamilton.
But they are not on their own… there is a whole legion of these turkeys, and the cause of such appalling mediocrity may be because of the way Universities are now admininistered.
10
I would be ashamed to be associated with the University which employs Hamilton as a professor. His article was devoid of both fact and logic and wouldn’t secure a pass as an undergraduate essay. It seems his University still struggles to rise above it’s TAFE roots. (With apologise to TAFE graduates).
10
Silliggy @ 16
You know the gulf has many natural oil seeps. Perhaps this is the missing cause of all the trips into ice age? Giant seeps that shut down the warm gulf? You know it would be impossible to prove (I think), sounds kinda familiar…….
I think we need to drill more to relieve the pressure! We need to use the Precautionary Principle to Drill for Reduced Internal Pressure. (DRIP)
10
King – what do bird calls and lovebird natterings have to do with the debate on AGW? Could it be that birds know more than those who blindly accept propaganda without critical thought?
10
I have no idea why the people who take the “moral high ground” when it comes to the “planet” tend to be the same liberal-minded “moral relativists” when it comes to human affairs (“No good and bad, it is a matter of the situation of the observer who puts “values” into what they see other people do”)
It’s a matter of time before people can get away with doing what they want if they can convince others that what they’re doing is for the good of the “planet.”
Thus far only Greenpeace vandals have applied this defence. Imaginative criminals could take this defence a lot further
10
The answer, Brian, is that these people tend to be those with no real moral anchors and they just adopt whatever argument they think will work. Apparently, many of them are too dull to realize that others perceive their flip-flopping arguments as evidence that they don’t understand what they are talking about.
10
Yes
“Oil is a biological product. It does degrade fairly easily because it’s been in the environment for millions of years,” Hazen said. Microbes will take advantage of the oil because they can thrive on it for food. The Gulf of Mexico has a lot of natural seeps. The equivalent amount of oil released in the Exxon Valdez spill seeps into the Gulf every year.”
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/science-scope/bacteria-are-eating-the-oil-plume-in-the-gulf/3721/
Imagine what would happen if an earthquake or volcano released a large volume all at once and on fire! Would we have any oxygen left? What would the thick hot black smoke do to the radiative imbalance?
Wonder if it could make this seem small:
“The eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets half-way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. In 2004, researchers proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch’s famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[11] Munch said: “suddenly the sky turned blood red … I stood there shaking with fear and felt an endless scream passing through nature.” Also, a so-called blue moon had been seen for two years as a result of the eruption.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa
10
When the climate science community is skeptical about catastrophic global warming in PRIVATE, why not everyone?
Here is what they say in private:
1) “Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=927&filename=1225026120.txt
2) “I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=947&filename=1231166089.txt
3) “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” [This statement was made 5-years ago and the global warming rate still is zero]
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt
4) “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
5) “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=138&filename=938031546.txt
6) “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=186&filename=968705882.txt
If the climate science community itself is allowed to be skeptical about man made global warming in private, why can not everyone in PUBLIC?
With all this skepticism about the theory of man made global warming by skeptics and by the climate science community, in private, a trillion dollar policy is not justified until this theory is validated.
Here is how we validate:
Year=> IPCC Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (deg C)
2005=>0.5
2010=>0.6
2015=>0.7
2020=>0.8
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo1.jpg
Year=>Global Mean Temperature Anomaly based on natural patterns (deg C)
2005=>0.5
2010=>0.4
2015=>0.3
2020=>0.2
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
If the observation matches the IPCC projections then we may have man made global warming and we may need to do something. However, if the observed temperatures match the natural pattern, then we must reject the theory of man made global warming.
We only need ten more years for the validation.
Validation of theory is the kernel of science!
10
Here’s a concept that is very relevant to much of the “environmental psychology” that is being used to advance the CAGW mythology as socially just and morally superior narrative, even if empirically it’s less than rational.
Megan McArdle,The Atlantic:
It’s called mass confirmation bias. The writer uses the example of famous psychologist Abraham Maslow:
As Brian Valentine points out the Greenpeace CAGW version of mass confirmation bias can be use to justify the most heinous of behavior, both scientific and socio-political. Clive Hamilton is an example of just how vile and low we can actually fall.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/09/finding-what-youre-looking-for/62531/
10
Jo Nova,
I am not trying to pick on your intellect or character.
But…our education and science has developed people to focus on a single minded issue without looking deeper into the cause.
Science has been corrupted long before any of us was born and just built upon itself to be all mighty.
Do we even know EXACTLY how evaporation works?
Not a single area of science has included planetary rotation into science. So as far as science is concerned our theories and LAWS are absolute and creating more educated idiots.
When you question a small area of science, look deeper as a great deal of the science is incorrect and using “proxies” as crutches to try and create the science.
There is a vast amount of “Actual Physical Evidence” that is being ignored as it threatens the current course of science that is currently mostly man-made theories. Great amounts of garbage science that class with each other put into individual classes.
The answers are there but no one is making an effert to dig deep enough. Our planet has done an amazing evolution to get to where our species are now.
10
Joe #42
Joe, what is your point? There is a vast amount of actual physical evidence which can be used to determine human effect on climate and the data strongly suggests the established IPCC view is very wrong.
On WUWT today is a study which back calculates pCO2 doubling effect using the estimated total greenhouse effect on Earth. The study finds a 2XCO2 effect of 0.54 K. This is consistent with the measured empirical values of 0.4-0.6 K found by Choi, Lindzen and Spencer, who himself gets about 0.5 K by at least two different methods.
This is also around about the number I’d estimate from the temperature record which shows a SST rise (ie sans UHI and soot effects) of 0.4 K/century, of which about 0.2 K might be due to CO2 (the rest being other greenhouse gases and solar related).
All this suggests to my old scientist’s eye that we have several hundred years until we even reach the IPCC’s 2 K limit, which itself wouldn’t roast a beetle let alone a polar bear.
Of course I’m retired and don’t have any highly paid government supported AGW grants so what do I know?
10
On the issue of carbon credits & a market price for CO2 did you know that credits are being traded in Chicago at a grand value of US$0.10 / tonne. Yes thats 10 cents per tonne & the Chicago Climate Exchange has sacked more than 50% of their staff due to lack of interest in credits.
{INFO FROM REUTERS}
The Greens & Labor are looking at over $20.00 per tonne. Wow what great international we’ll have!!
Gillard was telling farmers to grow trees so that they can sell credits on the international markets! To make a living we’ll more trees than the landmass could carry!!
This just shows exactly how much the politicians understand what’s going on & they stiil want the scam to carry us on into economic oblivion!
10
Joe,
Sure, corruption in science is always with us. So is police corruption. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be constantly vigilant against such corruption.
Scientific “laws” and theories can NEVER be absolute.
Of course, vertically integrated sciences, such as, say, the taxonomical classification of beetles must take as “given” the more basic science of the cladistic evolution, which in turn takes as “given” the more basic science of the genome, which takes as “given” the more basic science of biochemistry which takes as “given” quantum physics.
This is no way implies the “laws” as we understand them today are not forever subject to vigorous review and modification as new evidence presents, for at any level on the vertical integration should an implication of a lower level science be found to not concur with the evidence, the assumptions must be revisited and revised. Sometimes this is a very painful process that trashes decades of research and careers. As such science tends to advance in generations. After all, scientists are mere humans subject to all the vanities and character flaws of the general population.
It’s a common misunderstanding to believe that anything in science is absolutely known- even the most fundamental laws of physics! The best we can ever say about a scientific law or theory is that it produces useful results. That it works. Scientists do not “believe” in their theories the way a Christian has faith in Christian theology.
Every law (theory), no matter how basic, must always remain forever a mere contingency in the philosophical sense that no human understanding of nature is logically necessary. That is to say that a scientific theory about nature is never precisely the same thing as nature in and of itself. Some better (more useful) description of nature is, by definition, always possible.
“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”
–Einstein
10
Wes,
You have hit onto some points of the past ideology.
Yes, the actual research into medicine or actual animal and plant physiology must be taken as a given as it would be impossible for a single person to review ALL the research for errors but there is still ommissions of knowledge of inclusion of energies beyond the body that influence growth and health. Such as mechanical planetary rotation which creates centrifugal force and electro-magnetics.
The path of basic knowledge in our understanding of this planet, solar system, sun, etc. has made logic into fiction as acceptable knowledge.
Where medicine and animal/plant studies disect and studies the whole, the rest of science then has individualized science into sectors and created Laws around them.
This planet evolved and created us exclusively for this planet. All the complex chemical, mechanical processes interact to generate the life we currently occupy.
What is gravity? Mass? Then what is the mechanics of mass? Where does the mechanics and energies of planetary rotation fit in?
10
Joe, the planet didn’t create us for anything, since the planet by definition can’t think ahead and plan for the future. We aren’t the end of evolution. We are still evolving. In fact, our evolution is accelerating exponential, culturally and probably physically as well.
Moreover, because we are intellectual beings – that’s what distinguishes us from the rest of the biological world anyway – we are not exclusively “designed” for this planet. We are the first organisms on this planet who can quite easily imagine expanding outward beyond the biosphere and into the solar system. If anything we seem ideally suited to expand off planet.
Don’t despair that our current state of scientific knowledge isn’t anywhere near complete. It’s evolving and accelerating exponentially as well. It’s nice that you are so curious about the world. But ultimately, who cares what gravity and mass really are. That might be the wrong way to pose the question. What we need to know is how to use gravity, energy and mass to navigate the maze of reality to do the things we want to do. This might be one reason we aren’t getting much beyond quantum physics yet. It’s working so well for our current purposes. What the ultimate nature of matter/energy matrix is beyond the mission of science altogether. It may be all we can do is to know how things work for the applications we need.
Human laws of science are not at all the same as the nature they attempt to represent and never can hope to be. Just like a landscape painting isn’t the landscape it visually mimics. At the deepest level science is always going to be something of a fiction.
10
Wes,
You think differently than I do, which is a good thing in that your responses have to make me do some thinking.
We take for granted that if we get off this rock of a planet that “Star Trek” fantacy will make many planets non hostile to human life. Just to find water on Mars does not nean that it will be drinkable as on our planet, they come in 3 different isotope
flavours that we are used to the other two in trace amounts.
Science has TOTALLY missed movement and motion in many theories and studies. It is taken for granted that that fussion and fission are the energy source for planets and suns. Where does this include the massive pressure to allow molecules to collide or where does the planetary rotation come in? Not even our atmosphere would exist without rotation.
10
Labor & Greens want a carbon price in excess of $20.00 / tonne.
Please bring to the attention of the voting public that carbon has been trading at Chicago Climate Exchange [Obama’s got an interest in this company] for as little as US$0.10 / tonne in August.
WHAT IS GOING HERE IN OZ??
I have written to newspapers & Coalition pollies but nobody will react.
See the following Reuters website for the report the Australian media ignore.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6791WI20100812
Maybe some questions to Brown/ Gillard will get a debate going.
10
Graham r@49
As you say, what is going on here in OZ?
I posted this last month:
In a falling market, anyone stupid enough to fall for the AGW hoax and wanting to buy carbon credits can buy them for bargain basement prices overseas!
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2010/08/price-to-pay-for-carbon.html
10