The selection of of the more extreme views of a group to attack a group or political party’s view is common in media commentary but it adds little to informed discussion. As Green elected representative I am concerned about global warming but not in some apocalyptic end it all vision. I do believe action on global warming is important but it is only one of many changes that are needed to see humans live in harmony with that which sustains us without the damage and extinction of species and with the best posssible lifestyle for us within those constraints.

Be a tough loner! Think for yourself! Don’t run with the herd! Join the ... er… club.

Yet another sceptical article on the future of climate change, from yet another ageing conservative male.

I just cannot tie my cart to a horse who probably won’t be around when we crest the next climatic hill, but who seems to believe that she’ll [probably] be apples when we do get there.

Yours,
Another Sceptic

PS So is it disc ... or disk?  Like so much else, it all depends on where you’re coming from and what you’re choosing to look at ...

“In the 1960s, didn’t the Club of Rome promise us a new Ice Age by the 1980s, with tens of millions dropping dead in the Third World by the hour?  And didn’t that cosy claque offer nightmares of mass-starvation halving the world’s population by millennium’s end?  Ordinary people with daily lives to get on with have more pressing matters than doing a headless chook animation at the latest “The End is Nigh !”

Clearly you didn’t read the Club of Rome’s ‘Limits to Growth’ book.

The book is essentially a commonsense warning for the people of the planet that there exists REAL limits to economic growth (ie more and more output per unit of labour) on a finite planet.

Fortunately I have this very book in front of me. A quiz at some of the chapter headings gives a good summary of what was really said:

resources are not unlimited;

world population will need to be constrained at some point. Later if lifestyles become more sustainable;

carbon dioxide concentrations in the air are rising (p.72)

nuclear and other wastes will rise exponentially if we don’t counter the then current trends.

etc. Please read the book.

“I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.”

U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations 1969

Part 2:

There’s nothing wrong with being a skeptic, providing:

You’re not funded to provide skeptical opinions by narrow interest groups;

You don’t receive mainstream media attention that is totally out-of-proportion to your numbers;

Your writing is honest and evidence for your argument exists and is not fabricated.

Fortunately, the online Centre for Media and Democracy has been following the phenomena of the latter category of ‘skeptic’ and revealing their source of funding, innapropriate coverage and other related matters.

[As it turns out, indeed, many climate-change skeptics have been receiving 50% or more of media coverage and being funded by a major oil company.]

See: 
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics
and
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change/Related_SourceWatch_Resources

Mr Colquhoun, you link to an article written by Christopher Monckton, ‘otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’ who ‘has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism.’ George Monbiot critiques him at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1947248,00.html

Have you read this article?

A couple of points:
1. The main thrust of your piece seems to be sceptical of global warming yet in the link you give to the Australian Sceptics list, ‘What we are sceptical of’, does not list ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’. Seems they are not sceptical about this issue.

2. You say that the spelling of the word as ‘skeptic’ is becoming British English. This is, to me, be another example of an Americanism as ‘skeptic’ is the American English spelling, just as ‘mollusk’ is.

‘The American spelling, akin to Greek, preferred by Fowler, and used by many Canadians, is the earlier form[51]. Sceptic also pre-dates the settlement of the U.S. and follows the French sceptique and Latin scepticus. In the mid-18th century Dr Johnson’s dictionary listed skeptic without comment or alternative but this form dropped out in England. Australians generally follow British usage. All are pronounced with a hard “c”, though in French the letter is effectively silent and so confusible with septique.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences

I am sceptical that ‘skeptic’ is British English and would be interested to know the basis for your claim that it is becoming British English for any reason other than the cultural dominance of the American media.

With over 20,000 children dying every single day on this planet there is obviously something very wrong. I suppose you are sceptical of this as well.

Does Scepticism mean inaction?

What brings scepticism a bad name is not a healthy scientific debate on what the science means, but the use of doubt to justify inaction.

A few subtle changes to taxation would have steered humanity on a much cleaner path (why tax payrolls when jobs have a demonstrated positive social impact, while not taxing carbon which has a high probability of negative social and environmental impacts).

It is OK to hold doubts about global warming, but it is simply foolish to use such doubts to justify inaction.

The wolf calls of the past, be they nuclear winter, oil conservation, over-population, acid rain or the collapse of fish stocks have generally been successful, in as much as collective action has taken place that have reduced the risk that the disaster takes place.

Fish stocks are an exception that proves the rule. In fact when preventative steps have been taken, they have generally been found to have significantly lower costs that the initial nay-sayers predicted, particularly when market forces and technology were used in preference to regulation.

To say that because we have successfully avoid disasters in the past we should ignore the potential for global warming is to say that it is OK to drive on the wrong side of the road, as long as you don’t hit another car.

I’m a climate change sceptic of a sort at this point. In as much as I don’t believe humanity will be able to avoid significant climate change because Greenland is already melting. That doesn’t mean I support inaction, because I could be wrong, and we may still be able to make a difference.

All people first learn to act when they associate crying with a reaction from those nearest and dearest. Some learn to act for the benefit of entertainment (a relatively harmless pursuit) while others act in politics, relationships, work and in achieving other personal ambitions.

Even sceptics have normal human acting skills.

To deny entertainers a voice in politics is as shallow as the denial of the voice of religious leaders or any other vocation.

After all, they all live in the “real world.”

Having been personally ordered to remain silent by a prominent Green at a Tasmania Together meeting (Kingston) for merely pointing out the conflict between two competing Green agendas some years ago I am well aware that rational debate and discussion is not something that environmentalists are overly keen on.

The point that I raised? Simply that a “clean and green image” is in many cases at odds with sustainability. I was stopped before being able to even give an example. But the two examples I was going to use are that tourism is “clean and green” but absolutely unsustainable due to oil consumption whereas the reverse is true for a hydro-electric dam - it is sustainable but doesn’t fit the “clean and green” image.

But never let facts get in the way of a predetermined outcome. Any discussion over climate change seems to follow much the same lines - debate is acceptable on the condition that it supports the notion that climate change is happening at a rate that requires immediate action.

Whether or not climate change is really a problem is not something that I am an expert on. But there’s never anything wrong with challenging a theory no matter what the issue. Unless, of course, someone stands to lose power or money should the alternate theory gain acceptance.

I am sceptical about any so-called Green claim that tourism is “clean ‘n’ green”, as I am about any claim that hydro-electricity is sustainable.

Shaun, I am also sceptical of your claim to having “been personally ordered to remain silent”, as distinct from having been told to shut up.  There is a significant difference.

I think I may have said this elsewhere but the public and media are uncomfortable with dealing with uncertainty around climate science. It is very hard to frame testable hypotheses around climate science as the outcome would be years or decades away. So, the science relies largely on observational correlations drawn from various historical records as well as modelling into the future, the latter being very unreliable. In contrast, an educated sceptic embraces uncertainty lovingly realising the joy of the unanswered question and the bliss of data as it emerges. But, it doesn’t sell newspapers, it doesn’t catch the public’s attention and it doesn’t mobilise governments and corporations to ‘do the right thing’.

I have noted elsewhere that I am an ecstatic sceptic, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences of the catastrophism associated with ‘climate change’ wont have some beneficial consequences for the environment in general. I remain wary about claims of scientific certainty in the matter, and I abhor religious environmentalism or corporate interests using the public’s ignorance of the science to further their political ends. I hope that the science of climate doesn’t become corrupted along the way.

Brilliant stuff Leonard.  If another hairy legged socially inept science major bangs on about Al Friggin’ Gore and the end of the world I think I’m going to order a burger in Styrofoam. Other denying wowserism, great terminolgy and it is indeed big currency in the world of the mentally bankrupt. Sure we can clean up our act, but to present it as an apocolyptic given is full of a great green M.O, depressive negativism.

Those crazy, anti-human, tree-hugging, dirt-worshiping, greenie catastrophists are at it again:

‘The Royal Society report makes it clear that ocean acidification is irreversible within our lifetimes, and that it will take tens of
thousands of years to recover.’
— Dr Simon Wright and Dr Andrew Davidson (from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre and the Australian Antarctic Division), writing in the Australian Antarctic Magazine, Issue 10, Autumn 2006.
http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_388954837037037_17 Ocean acidification.pdf

In short, the increases in carbon dioxide concentration over the last few years is changing the chemical composition of the ocean. This is a simple, measurable, and predictable change that is   based on physico-chemical principles and processes; such as Henry’s Law. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now will continue to change the ocean for decades and will take thousands of years to reduce, even if carbon emissions by industrial society stopped overnight.

It seems the Royal Society, scientists at the ACE CRC at UTas and scientists at the Antarctic Division believe this; or they are part of an uninformed, apocalyptic, green conspiracy for personal profit and fame by doom-mongering. Download the article quoted above, it’s a laugh, and one I’m sure your children will giggle over in a couple of decades time.

For lashings of mirth, you can’t go past the biased pseudo-science found in the report from the Royal Society in the UK, have a look at:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539

It is a disgrace that a scientific Society that has been in existence since 1660, with past Presidents that have included Isaac Newton and Sir Joseph Banks, can sink so low as to be part of a wooly-thinking fad, or conspiracy, or religion, or…

Justa Bloke,

The only words I managed to say at that meeting were to the effect of “given that the meeting has expressed a view that Tasmania ought to pursue a direction which is clean, green and sustainable (which is what had been said up to that point), what happens when there is a conflict between “clean and green” versus “sustainable”?”.

A simple question which related directly to the topics already discussed at the meeting which had primarily focused on development versus conservation up to that point with some mention of education and health as issues.

Clearly there are situations where something is viewed as “clean and green” but it is not the most sustainable option. Tourism, which has certainly been promoted as “clean and green” being but one example. But I didn’t get to actually state a single example at that meeting.

My point isn’t about tourism, hydro or any other specific issue. It is about the total unwillingness to accept that there even could be a conflict between “clean and green” and “sustainable”. That is my point. Environmentalists don’t like such things being pointed out and I was effectively silenced as soon as it became clear that this is what I was going to do.

Meanwhile the 15 or so people who freely admitted to attending Tasmania Together meetings every night in order to put their views across went unchallenged. Not what I would call a democratic process when some get multiple “votes” and those who disagree get none.

As for being told to shut up versus being silenced, agreed there is a difference. Had I repeatedly raised the same point, attended multiple meetings in order to stack the overall result of TT, been rude, made personal attacks etc then being told to shut up would have been entirely reasonable. But simply asking, once and in a polite manner after waiting my turn to speak, a question that was inconvenient is hardly justification for being told to stop speaking. Hence my view that I and anyone else with a similar view was, in practice, silenced. A view that was expressed by several unknown persons outside after the meeting and presumably reflects the view of at least some of those who left the meeting shortly after this incident.

Environmentalism is ultimately no different to any other political movement. Challenge the basic concepts that underpin that movement and you’ll find yourself anything but popular.

I am glad to see that Jon Sumby is coming on board about the insidious motives of dark green environmentalism! But he does have a good point on the potential dangers to the oceans but misses what makes good science, even in the information sheet he linked to. On the sheet, the scientists place this disclaimer “The effects of acidification on ecosystems are difficult to predict in detail because of their complexity” and then go on to describe what may be the harmful effects of increased acidification.

However, a line must be drawn between what the science says is fact and what is informed speculation vs how it is used for political purposes. What I object to is the media and political environmentalists then making claims with great certainty, often conjuring tremendous catastrophes (that may or may not happen). I have no problem whatsoever if the environmental politician is explicit in saying that the catostrophe du jour is their view on the subject, but have great concern when they claim that this is what science definitively says (rather than what it suggests). From my perspective, this is a political corruption of the science. And my view is that political environmentalists are the greatest abusers of science when it comes to advancing their agenda - they love the climate/earth scientists who support their platform in any way, but they brand the sceptics as corrupt. They are also broadly against other mainstays of modern science, such as, for example, tinkering with nature (eg GM foods/animals) and animal experimentation for medical research. Thus, in many ways, the environmental movement is anti-science unless it fits their socio-political agenda. 

As another recent example, the RPDC fiasco is a great example of this. Even though he was a relevant expert at the underlying science relevant to the pulp mill, his inclusion on the panel was attacked by the Greens, hammering away at potential conflicts of interest (a COI which was acknowledged earlier in any case). I presume that the Greens also thought that there would be some merit in undermining a person with scientific credentials as any RPDC stamp of approval for the Mill might be construed as having survived such analysis. And then, when the fellow resigns and presents his considered views on the mill application, he opinion is then claimed by the Greens for their political ends. Thus, no interest in the science, but great motivation to either kick or applaud the scientist depending on whether it fits their view on how the world should be run.

Shaun, as I wasn’t at the gathering you refer to, I can only take your word for what happened.  My point was certainly not to condone the behaviour you allege.

I cannot, however, agree that there could ever be a conflict between ‘clean and green’ and ‘sustainable’.  If an activity is unsustainable (eg tourism) it can never be considered appropriate for a state which is aiming for a ‘clean and green’ reality, as distinct from a ‘clean and green’ image.

The problem with Green politicians and many of their supporters is that they don’t want to upset the tourism and hospitality industries because that would be unpopular with the electorate.  Therefore they are selective in what unsustainable activities they oppose.

In this respect they are no different from their political opponents, in wanting the image without the reality.

Stacking of meetings, silencing those that complain or have a different point of view, being rude, fundamentalism, dogma, failing to embrace uncertainty.

This is precisely what the Tasmanian Labor and Liberal Governments have done to nullify opposition from communities around this state.

What’s objectional about this particular article is that it pretends that these unpleasant tactics only come from ‘the Greens’ or ‘the environmental movement’.  It takes the stance that they (the environmentalists) are the ones who wield power over those ‘poor bastards’ who want to continue with ‘business and usual’.

The truth is that the ‘business-as-usual-crowd’ are, indeed, the ones who hold the REAL political power.  They want to continue the ‘growth at all costs’ equation until the global-warming catastrophe is proved beyond ALL doubt. 

Rather than ‘embracing uncertainty’ these guys are simply perpetuating the well-worn tactic of promoting doubt to evade the important responsibility that goes with the existence of uncertainty - to implement the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

Tomas, in No. 16, is being deceitful again by using selectively quoting to try and spin doubt. The full sentence is:

‘The effects of acidification on ecosystems are difficult to predict in detail because of their complexity, however acidification is expected to have dramatic effects through three main avenues:’ (emphases added)

What they are saying is that the effect of ocean acidification is going to be large scale-scale and ‘dramatic’ but the fine details are hard to resolve. The plankton that will be affected are a fundamental and important part of ocean ecology and food-webs. To give an analogy; for a moment imagine if all the grass in Tasmania died, the effect on Tasmanian ecosystems clearly would be dramatic, but the effect is hard to predict in detail.

Tomas goes on to be comment about statements about things ‘that may or may not happen’ to cast doubt on the validity of conclusions drawn from the science.

Firstly, ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming. It is a simple, well-understood, process relating to the balance between CO2 in the air and dissolved in th ocean.

Increase the concentration of CO2 in the air and more dissolves into the sea. This process has started, cannot be stopped by anything we do, and will continue for decades. Even if we halved CO2 emissions, that will only lengthen the time for a new air/ocean CO2 balance and resulting ocean acidification. There is no ‘may or may not’ about this. The ecological effect of this will be large and dramatic, there is no ‘may or may not’ about this and a lot of research is going on to try and resolve what these effects could be, hence the article I linked to in my comment (No.14).

Things like:

‘Increased acidity also affects larger organisms. Fish find it more difficult to transport oxygen when their tissues become more acidic, slowing their growth. Squid are particularly affected because their energetic swimming requires good oxygen exchange.’ From: the link in comment 14.

‘Shirayama and Thornton [2005] found that even moderate increases in atmospheric CO2 to 550 ppmv, a level which is likely to be reached by the middle of this century, will adversely affect other shallow water marine benthic organisms by reducing their growth, calcification, and survival. Sea urchins that form parts of their exoskeletons out of magnesium calcite appear particularly threatened.

...even on much shorter timescales, changes in atmospheric CO2 as well as changes in other environmental variables may severely impact ocean biota. Hoegh-Guldberg [2005] reviews evidence suggesting that corals could become rare by the middle of this century because of simultaneous increases in temperature and decreases in carbonate ion concentration.

Portner et al. [2005] provide an overview of short and long-term effects of increasing CO2 on various physiological mechanisms in marine animals. They show that chronic exposure in invertebrates first results in a general depression of physiological functions, including rates of metabolism, activity, and growth; subsequently, chronic exposure also leads to enhanced mortality. Effects from higher CO2 will likely exacerbate those from increased temperatures and decreased dissolved O2. Thus the thermal window of a given species may become narrower as will its geographical distribution.’
From: Orr, J.C. et al. (2005). Introduction to special section: The Ocean in a High-CO2 World. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, C09S01.

I consider myself as always having been a sceptical person and indeed have been told so by many , however there are skeptics and their are stupid ostrich who at any sign of danger stick their head in the ground, i think we have quite a few of the latter right here, any one who can discount the worlds current weather patterns and the massive loss of life on a daily basis around this planet are not skeptics ! they are just plain stupid.
            d.d.

In the Higher Education section of The Australian of Wed 14 Feb 07, two social scientists took politicians, and their own colleagues, to task, generally, for being selective in their application of scientific rigour in argument.

“ONE of the most important contributions a scientist can make is to successfully question opinions that seem self-evident and obvious to the public. Once it was commonly accepted in the West that the world was flat and that the heart was the residence of the soul.

“By the same token one of the biggest dangers for a scientist is to get sucked into simply stating things that go along with what is commonly believed but are not really self-evident at all. It’s very easy to make statements that go with the grain without applying the same amount of thought given to statements that go against the grain.”

This is exactly the sort of approach that the debate, discussion, discourse (whatever) on climate change needs.

Should something simply be accepted just because a group of UN-endorsed, that is, politically backed, scientists say so ?  “By the same token” should something be rejected on the grounds that it’s just another UN feel-good but do-harm con-job ?

Paul Frijters, an economics professor at the Queensland University of Technology, and Tony Beatton, a PhD student at QUT, are researching data imprecision in the social sciences. Their sort of research and their across-the-spectrum type of enquiry is needed when lots of people, especially politicians, start saying to us: “Trust us -  we’re from the Government / the Opposition / the Crossbenches, and we know what’s good for you and your planet”.

Although their article is not on climate change, it repays careful reading -

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21220930-12332,00.html

“When I was a member of Greenpeace in the 1980s I received a request for money supported by the claim that about 30,000 species each year were becoming extinct. Until then I’d been an unsceptical environmentalist, but this sounded like an awful lot, so I called Greenpeace to ask how they knew. I made several queries but they didn’t seem very interested. Finally they told me they didn’t know where the figure came from, and I resigned from the organisation.”

So writes on this weekend before Saturnalia MMVII the Sydney Morning Herald’s Michael Duffy. Now the dear old SMH is hardly full of fascist and racist neo-cons, but it’s a bob to a C-note that his article will evoke a lot of hot air, which, sadly, is unconvertible into carbon credits -

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/however-virtuous-virtual-science-is-no-substitute-for-the-realthing/2007/12/21/1198175338154.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Interesting, also, to note that Kevin07 has been give a blast or ten by our very own Senator Brown, Caliph of the Dark Green Umma; we can, it seems, rely on the Ruddslidester to moderate the fanaticism of the Western world’s latest substitute for its once prevalent Mid-East derived monotheism.

So the SMH has changed, has it, Leonard?  Where did all the extreme right-wingers go?

Justa, I’ve only been perusing the SMH (‘skimmming’ might be more accurate) since the early 1980s (it was the main Oz paper available, on delay, of course, up in PNG), and it’s always seemed to generally have a left-of-centre stance, as has its current stablemate The Age. So your question is hard to answer, as the SMH doesn’t appear to have had all that many “extreme right wingers” to go anywhere.

Papers can change: The Australian, for example, ran one of the most biased campaigns of recent times in connexion with the Nov 1999 constitutional referendum, and it now acknowledges that such was the case.

It’s all a matter of degree.  To call either of the Fairfax rags (I’ve been reading both since the 1960s) ‘left of centre’ puts the centre in a strange place from my point of view.