Remember that speech Nick Minchin gave where he said that the Libs would like to make WorkChoices even more radical, but the electorate hated it?
Prime Minister John Howard has accepted the reality of climate change after more than a decade of scepticism on his part about global warming.
But Senator Minchin said that respected climatologists and geologists had “significant concerns about what the IPCC is saying, and they (the IPCC) are only saying (that human induced climate change) is very likely, they themselves concede there is some doubt”.
In fact, Minchin, in his own eyes, is practising a core Australian value (is it on the test?):
“It is more likely that those of a conservative disposition will have a greater quotient of inherent, and I think healthy, scepticism,” he said.
“We get attacked for this, but scepticism is one of the all-time great Australian attributes. It is one of the things Australians are famous for.
Last week, of course, the sycophantic interpretation of the Obama brain explosion was that Howard had cunningly shifted the national debate off the unfavourable territory of carbon emissions…
Really? I think he is in the same boat as Minchin. They hold hands on everything, as Robert Hill now knows.
Given that conservatives traditionaly believe in caution, a social contract between past, present and future generations and a cynical attitude towards notions if indefinant and cost-free progress it seems to me that denying anthropogenic climate change is exactly the sort of thing a conservative would not do.
Shorter Minchen: We are sceptical about X (where X represents a threat to our core constituency) until scepticism carries with it a political cost.
Tories have universally been the greatest tub-thumpers, alarmists, dogwhistle-blowers, Reds-under-the-beds, Islamophobe, anti-Catholic, anti-Irish figures in Australian political life.
When it comes to ferreting out the cheap vote, they have thrown scepticism, caution, respect for the truth out the window.
Minchin just doesn’t want to be the next on John’s chopping block for non-performance.
I’m a bit skeptical of Minchin.
The IPCC didn’t say that there was a 90% chance that AGW was occurring. They said that it was ‘very likely’, which in the IPCC footnotes translates to a 90-99% chance. Like most far right-wing ideologues, Minchin is quoting the 90% figure to create an illusion of uncertainty.
Link
Sigh. He is not saying anything unusual unless one either believes everything the media says, or is a paid up member of Gaia’s Church of man-is-to-blame-for-everything.
Why don’t people READ the science, instead of taking what some journalist with a deadline to meet thinks? A journalist who him/herself does not read the science?
For example, the readership here might turn to and read the December 2006 issue of the Journal Of Atmospheric And Solar-Terrestrial Physics. You will find a fascinating paper by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Finland and Cornelis de Jager of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. They write up the results of their testing of the two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar energy. These are:
1. That the variations in the tropospheric temperature are caused directly by changes of the solar radiance. (Insolation theory)
2. That cosmic ray fluctuations, caused by the solar/heliospheric modulation, affect the climate via cloud formation. (Now this one is exciting indeed and has significance because it actually postulates an extra-solar influence on climate!)
Interestingly, they conclude that the former is more likely. So they think that tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux. But the influence of the CR flux is still not well understood, so there is still research to do – complementarity is not, of course, ruled out: “There is general agreement that variations in the global (or hemispheric) tropospheric temperature are, at least partly, related to those in solar activity (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Solanki and Krikova, 2003; Usoskin et al., 2005; Kilcik, 2005).”
Note the word ‘partly’. It’s IMPORTANT. Oh, you’ll find the journal and references in any decent Uni library (ANU has it, here in Canberra).
CLimate change, sure, happens all the time because that is what the climate DOES. Warming now? Sure, that’s what the Milankovich cycle predicts, and insolation has increased what, 6% since 1750? So it’ll warm up for 200 years, then start to cool again. Most of this has been known since the 30s.
Humans causing it? Very probably not (How did human cause the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods then, or the vast warming at the end of the last ice age??). Very little of the SCIENCE supports this hypothesis.
Read the science. Ignore the doom-mongers who are making money off the scare.
MarkL
Canberra
This is the same guy who said recently that $1billion was an insignificant amount of money compared with total government expenditure. While this might be mathematically correct, it does have the touch of Marie Antoinette about it. He must be the only man in the country who’d be blithe about that sort of money.
Someone with such a record in backroom politics should not be so stupid as to say things like that. A freshly-preselected candidate for some sea you’ve never heard of would be publicly carpeted for making a fraction of this sort of bad PR.
Barnaby/Katter-style rural independents should, and probably will, target Minchin as The Man Who Sold Telstra. They’d have to hope Minchin will rise to their baiting. Likewise, ALP strategists could do worse than smoke him out at every possible opportunity – any vestige of human warmth in the government’s image will evaporate every time his visage fills voter’s screens. As for the Libs, Minchin might know his way around the backroom operations but they’d be fools to expose him to direct sunlight between now and Christmas.
MarkL
Sigh…when a particular scientist comes up with a screamingly obvious explanation like the sun’s energy outputs are increasing, you’d have to wonder exactly how in 30 years of research the rest of the world’s climatologists failed to consider the possibility.
Answer is: They did consider the possibility and the considered response is that, no, it does not account for the increase in average global temperatures.
When will you Tories learn, there aren’t any lonely and brave genius researchers overturning the basic frameworks of any of the branches of science anymore. To be more accurate there are millions of bright researchers who would love to make a huge name for themselves by doing it.
But it doesn’t happen because the crusty old relics in the labs are not thick-headed Colonel Blimps who cling to old certainties – they are damned sharp and damned good at what they do. And when you have thousands of the world’s experts agreeing that, yes there is global warming going on, and yes, mankind’s use of fossil fuels is the most likely culprit, then rest assured that they’ve thought and argued long and hard about it.
Idiots like Andrew Bolt may like to claim that scientific consensuses are driven by politics, but I suggest that he may like to stand on a firing range and see if he can argue away the general consensus of ballistics science that his head will get blown off.
What sort of God complex must be inhabiting the Liberal party at the moment, that every thought they have is apparently one “shared by all Australians”, “a famous Australian quality” or “quintessentially Aussie”?
And what of that famous Aussie disdain for authority and regulations?
Andrew:
Your comments indicates that you have not read the science. Your automatic resort to ad hominem and hyperbole (you know the ‘answer’ for the entire science of climatology just how??) supports this contention.
Should you choose to, you could go out and find out the reality of the science yourself. I suspect you’d be astounded to find the actual realities of the situation are different to what you have been told, and how little is actually known. But I also suspect that you will never, ever bother to find out for yourself, but prefer to let others lead you according to their agendas.
This is your decision, of course.
MarkL
Canberra
“But I also suspect that you will never, ever bother to find out for yourself, but prefer to let others lead you according to their agendas.” says MarkL.
Pray tell, MarkL of Canberra, what then is your agenda? Government staffer/hopeful may we presume?
MarkL’s interpretation of the paper is complete bullsh*t.
Here’s the paper.
The abstract says:
You’ll note that the paper does not claim that solar activity is the dominant cause of climate change, and in fact makes no attempt at all to compare solar activity with other causes of climate change.
I should add that the paper actually debunks one of the denialists’ latest attempts at misdirection.
I would not under-estimate Minchin at all – in fact I would outflank him on the right. The Alternative Liberal Party can do this by becoming the ‘go-to’ people for smaller leaner government. Less-is-more…small-is-beautiful.
Like it not a core electoral appeal of the right is the less govt – lower taxes mantra. Yet a significant – Ross Perotist – slice of the right can be taken out with targeted advertizing. Clinton got in when the right divided and so it can happen again. Their is already a ‘left’ faction – the Drs wives plot – already to go so…
If the ALP promise on their mothers grave to restore all our inalienable human and civil rights and decrease the overall size, power and reach of the state then they will be riding a winner come December.
I promise you on MY mothers life that the future of rock-and-roll is global branding, just-in-time-manufacturing and a lower leaner business hierachy.
Osama told me.
Alex, the article you linked to gets it slightly wrong. This is what I said in my post on the IPCC SPM:
Again from my post, this is what SPM said about solar forcing:
Solar irradiance was found to be 0.12 watts per square metre.
The Finnish paper looks at the difference between “solar radiance (total spectral)” and “cosmic ray (CR) fluctuations”. They find the former more likely to be a factor than the latter. That is hardly surprising, because the CR fluctuations occur over an 11-year cycle. In other words there is no trend that corresponds to what is happening with GW.
In the light of the SPM observations we are talking about the difference between next to nothing and even less.
MarkL said:
“Humans causing it? Very probably not”
Gee, you really think that hundreds of years of coal smoke and a hundred years of automobile fumes going into the atmosphere envelope isn’t making a difference? Goodness me, takes all sorts, I s’pose.
PS: Minchin is an extremist who is more fitting to another place and era than Australia in the 2000s. Dickensian England springs readily to mind.
SJ: congratulations on reading the abstract. May I suggest reading more than just the abstract, but the whole paper?
And just where did you get, from my post, that “the paper does not claim that solar activity is the dominant cause of climate change…”?
I DID NOT claim that at all – see the comment. I said:
“Why don’t people READ the science, instead of taking what some journalist with a deadline to meet thinks? A journalist who him/herself does not read the science?
For example, the readership here might turn to and read…”
and that is the thrust of the comment. I stated that I was using this article as an EXAMPLE OF THE SCIENCE, not as ‘proof’ of any particular theory.
What I am saying is not to trust the opinions of uninformed journalists, go and read the science for yourself – thereby implying that people should make up their own minds BASED on the science, and not on spin and BS.
Why is this contentious? I am asking why people do not read thw science and make up their own minds.
Essentially, I AM saying that too many people believe the BS of those with agendas, or the words of people who have no clue what they are talking about. Like politicians and entertainers for God’s sake!
Should you actually WANT to read information on what leading scientific figures in the field actually say about the hype, BS and agenda driven spin of the present ill-informed hysteria, see:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
It’s not a bad place to start to track down the names of some of the leading scientists in the field (and some data on their opinion of the present hysteria), as a place to start to read the actual science.
Or you can trust Al Gore, a variety of hollywood bimboes, and journalists to think for you. Up to you.
Tooz
“Gee, you really think that hundreds of years of coal smoke and a hundred years of automobile fumes going into the atmosphere envelope isn’t making a difference?”
Fascinating. So your explanation for the Roman warm period and the Mediaeval warm period is ‘coal smoke and automobiles’.
M’kaaaay. Thought the Romans used charcoal and wood, horses, carts and chariots myself. But if you want to believe the Romans drove automobiles, fine, that is up to you.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL, maybe if you used MORE CAPS, scientists around the world would see the error of their ways, stop worrying about evidence and all that old-fashioned stuff, and start listening to the obvious source of wisdom, pseudonymous blog comments from people whose ignorance is matched only by their determination to reach politically convenient conclusions.
Gets my my vote as Quote of the day!!!
MarkL: speaking as a scientist, I second John Quiggin’s comment. I will certainly not throw out my understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, astronomy, logic, evidence-based reasoning et cetera, unless you use a LOT MORE CAPITALS.
And I do wish you’d stop giving our National Capital a bad name by using it in your signature! I for one do not care where you live, except for a slight preference that it was either the Maldives or coastal Mississippi.
Minchin is a bit like Garrett – with the obvious difference being Minchin blurts out what he really thinks, whereas Pete is keeping it all bottled up.
JQ
‘MarkL, maybe if you used MORE CAPS, ‘
Apologies, I did not realise your vision is poor. Get the IT guys to resize your screen for you.
Checking your record for being correct on… well about anything really, would indicate that the better path is the inverse of anything you suggest.
So, JQ, is Cameron Diaz your guru on climate science, or is she too smart for you, so you stick with Al Gore?
See, anyone can take cheap shots as you have done. It seems rather juvenile to commence a commentary at such a level, though.
Brian states that he reads the science. Good. It seems immaterial if his conclusions differ from mine. If others choose to: “…trust Al Gore, a variety of hollywood bimboes, and journalists to think for you. …” then that is their business
Seriously, what is is with you folks? Someone states that it is better to read the science and make up your own mind, and this leads to a full-flounce puce hissy fit. At least the ad hominem shows that you have nothing substantive to add.
MarkL
Canberra
A new poll has found that if an election were held now, Howard would lose the blue ribbon seat of Bennelong!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=228046
I pary the Howard loses his seat. the Liberals lose the election, and the Party implodes in sea of acrimony and despondency.
I would be happy if only one of those prayers were answered.
silkworm, can you please post comments of that sort on the open thread, not on topic specific threads?
In any case, there is now a thread on the Bennelong poll:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/02/19/beaten-in-bennelong/
Sorry, Mark. The open thread was not immediately available, and I thought it was reasonably relevant to this thread. However, next time I will oblige.
silkworm, thanks, you just need to scroll down the front page even if the open thread doesn’t appear on the comments sidebar.
Worth a chuckle.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/02/18/3642612-sun.html
MarkL
Canberra