The Spectator has excelled itself in stupidity by putting on it’s front page a puff piece boosting Ian Plimer. This was too tempting a target for George Monbiot at The Guardian, so he obliged with a scathing commentary. This led to an exchange between protagonists, reported by Tim Lambert at Deltoid.
Plimer challenged Monbiot to a face-to-face debate which Monbiot accepted provided that:
he agreed to write precise and specific responses to his critics’ points — in the form of numbered questions that I would send him — for publication on the Guardian’s website. I also proposed that there should be an opportunity at the debate for us to cross-examine each other.
Initially Plimer refused, but then Monbiot accused him of cowardice, which brought an acceptance by Plimer and Monbiot’s publication of his questions.
Unfortunately Plimer, instead of answering Monbiot’s questions, responded with a list of his own.
There are real problems and dangers in engaging people like Plimer as Monbiot knows full well.
For starters as Lambert says there is the Gish gallop:
an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.
I was in that situation once myself a few years ago when I calculated that I’d need a 2500 word comment in order to reply to at least five separate issues, raised in a few deft strokes by a very clever interlocutor. I never solved the problem of how to respond; it still sits somewhere in the archives as an ostensible defeat.
Monbiot had seen how Plimer answers his critics mainly by insulting them.
I was concerned that a face-to-face debate, with all its bluster and generalisations, would let him off the hook.
There is also the problem of giving Plimer some credibility simply by engaging.
Barry Brook faced all these problems in deciding to debate Plimer in public, which Brook blogged about here and here.
It’s interesting that in Brook’s assessment it was an entertaining night out but convinced no-one.
Meanwhile readers will recall that Mercurius in his clever and entertaining post The Rules assembled an impressive list of links to Plimer critiques. I wondered at the time whether they were co-extensive with the ones I had assembled in an earlier blog comment.
Goodness me they were, Merc, apart from you doubling up on Lambeck and adding a later link to Brook! Great minds think alike 
I’ve communicated with Merc, and indeed it was a case of two people gathering info from the same sources.
Anyway Lambert at Deltoid picked up Mercurius post, which is good because Deltoid has an international readership. I wouldn’t be surprised if Monbiot read it as well, given that he quotes Deltoid and some of the references included in Mercurius’ post. Except that Monbiot’s article precedes Mercurius by about a month. Still, isn’t the internet a wonderful thing!
What I’ve decided to do is list a new selection of Plimer critiques, including one by Jim Lippard, courtesy of Deltoid. Lippard also finds Plimer a completely worthless source on creationism. Ouch!
Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of NSW No science in Plimer’s primer
Professor Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change & Sustainability, University of Adelaide Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth
Barry Brook The great climate debate 2009 – Brook vs Plimer
Barry Brook Twitter Plimer on ice
Leigh Dayton, award winning science writer and broadcaster Denialist ark a wobbly craft
Ian Enting, Professorial Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS), University of Melbourne Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ – Checking the Claims*
Professor Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science and substantively Distinguished Professor of Geophysics at the ANU Comments on Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science
Tim Lambert, blogger who specialises in exposing the follies of climate denialists and other bad science The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”
Tim Lambert, Ian Plimer lies about source of his figure 3
Tim Lambert, Plimer and Arctic warming
Prof David Karoly, ARC Federation Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne Heaven + Earth – review by David Karoly
Jim Lippard, (profile here), Ian Plimer on climate change
Then there is Charlie Veron, former Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), who says that Plimer was not only wrong about reefs, what he said was mostly the opposite of the truth. Veron said as much on the ABC’s Breakfast program. There had been a link to a subsequent blog piece, but it’s now broken.
The ABC also has a roundup of five scientists’ views on the book.
Here’s a list of the first three Monbiot pieces, plus further developments.
Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic
Why can’t the champion of climate change denial face the music?
Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight
More recently Lambert has complained about the ABC online spot Unleashed giving Plimer a run. I think this happens when their commitment to ‘balance’ overrides their concern for quality control. I think reviews give you an idea whether you want to read a book or not. the reviews on Heaven + Earth are such that it’s not just a waste of time, rather as a non-scientist you run the risk of filling your head with incorrect and misleading junk. So I haven’t listed supportive pieces, such as Andrew Bolt’s blog and the ABC’s Counterpoint.
As Brook sums up on the ABC roundup:
Ian’s stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view — and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science.”
So on this blog I have no interest in discussing the so-called ‘merits’ of Plimer’s claims. None. This post was to make a one stop spot for assembling genuine scientific critiques to which commenters are welcome to add, plus to follow the kerfuffle with Monbiot. The problem with Plimer is that he keeps on turning up, a virus infecting public opinion, so we need a convenient antidote.
* Updated to version 1.9 – see Barry Brook @ 22 below
Update: Via Deltoid a piece by Bob Ward on Plimer, at Timesonline.
Again linked from Deltoid a piece by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate answers the questions posed by Plimer.
Schmidt really puts the cleaners through him, concluding:
In summary, the relevance of these questions is extremely low, and even when the basic question deals with an issue that is relevant, the question itself is usually nonsensical and presupposes many assumptions that are certainly not a given (at least in the real world). In fact, for the couple of cases where the scientific content is high, the answer is in contradiction to Plimer’s unstated assumptions. The most obvious use of these questions to support a ‘we don’t know everything, so we must know nothing’ type of argument, which is a classic contrarian trope, and one that is easily dealt with.
These questions have as much to do with a debate on human caused climate change as tribbles have to do with astrobiology. Both are troubling, but for very different reasons.
There is also a link to a list of Plimer critiques at RC Wiki.
Tamino looks at Plimer’s claims about volcanos emitting large bursts of CO2 by looking for the effect of supervolcano explosions. Basically there isn’t any.
Then Tamino examines Plimer’s claim of a 100ppm gain from a decent volcano explosion against what happened with el Chicon in early 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in mid-1991.
It turns out that 1 ppm CO2 is about 7.8 Gt (billion tonnes) of CO2. The entire output of the Mt. Pinatubo explosion was about 10 Gt. So even if every bit of material ejected by the explosion had been CO2 (which is not the case, not even close, CO2 was only a minor player in the volcano’s exhaust) it would have contributed only 1.3 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, not the 100 ppm which Ian Plimer painted as a routine occurence. The CO2 output from the Mt. Pinatubo explosion doesn’t even make a “blip” in the CO2 concentration.
Tamino then does some of his clever statistical analysis to find the there was an effect from Pinatubo – in fact it was associated with small decrease in emissions.
Truly, it’s time for Plimer to crawl back under his rock.
Yes, but all those supposed authoritative scientists are just part of the conspiracy, blah, blah, blah.
Not only is there is no point in engaging with Plimer and the like, doing so only serves to give them a veneer of credibility, and encourages them further.
Furthermore, it’s not even a good idea to point people to critiques of Plimer, because this may just encourage a view that the Plimer view is a plausible side of a scientific debate. And neither should people like Monbiot dump all over Plimer, tempting as it may be, because that could encourage misplaced sympathy.
Plimer et al should simply be left alone to talk amongst themselves.
Oh great two people who don’t know what they’re talking about arguing AGW again. I really like arguing about AGW. I mean climatology’s a really complicated subject and I have absolutely no capacity to understand more than the basics but it’s really great to argue about it as if I do.
.
I mean is there anything anyone’d rather be doi…
.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Remember the 20:20 rule. A factoid, half-truth, red herring or outright furphy that takes only 20 seconds to utter (e.g. “The world has been cooling since 1998″) can require 20 minutes of logical, factual, properly sourced refutation.
You’re right about the misplaced sympathy, Sam. I know a couple of blokes, geoscientists as it happens, who are sceptical about AGW and who thought that one of the more devastating reviews of Plimer’s book was rude, and seriously ad-hom. ( I didn’t, by the way. I thought it was calm and balanced.)
However, you can’t ignore these people, because as soon as you do, The Australian will cheerfully print a string of shrill complaints that the warmists are afraid to debate the Truth, with a side-order of the new Galileo!!!!11!.
I don’t know what the answer is.
Good work Brian.
This Plimer fella seems like a bit of a TRICKY DICK to me…the Brit-CON & Aussie Liberal answer to the fundy flakes who have put their side of politics and allied corporations into a downward spin due to myopic tactics…and so we get this dude who attempts to label global warming believers as atheistic fundies/believers not unlike the dopey Creationists he antagonised…not a bad tactic really considering the cynical aspects to each of us…& our sense that some pollies on all sides of politics are promoting CHANGE or STATUS QUO on energy use based on which mate/donor/ally/family shareholder benefits from specified policies & media-related fear-mongering.
But, as someone who thinks energy diversity is good in terms of diminishing stranglehold monopolies and rigged games and collusive pricing mechanisms…and that more community-based renewable energy might assist the undermining of stankin’ vertical and horizontal integration that occurs across the board these days…including the relationship between the mainstream media and corporations (think energy, big pharma, meat industry, entertainment etc)…I’m not too concerned about whether or not global warming is happening as a concept…and which elephant or donkey is promoting what…but rather I’m finding myself progressively not supporting or heeding the words of hypocrites who are GAMBLING w/ our socio-economic & environmental future…i’m not going to take the risk of listening to & heeding the words, arguments of those w/ a real vested interest, yet seem to deny such:
Plimer was formerly listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia. Plimer is currently listed as an “allied expert” for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group.
Mining interests
Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe,CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals. Plimer has said that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme will “decimate Australia’s mining industry”. Plimer rejects charges of a conflict of interest between his commercial mining activities and his dismissive stance on global warming.
Wiki pedia)
Personally, I think the Labor Party needs to bring The Greens into discussions too…cause there are plenty of Greens out there who preferenced Labor who just might decide to vote GREEN in the Senate…and intentionally make their House of Rep vote invalid. And give the government a mighty hard time in the process. Which would be sad…cause I think this govt. is BALANCED enuff to hear & try & accomodate a variety of views.
Coming from a Greenish Laborite w/ the odd Social Libertarian tendency.
N’
‘The Spectator’ article implies in the very first sentence that AGW is primarily a creation of Al Gore. This piece of deception is a very common rhetorical device amongst conservatives, akin to linking any statement about Islam with Osama bin Laden. Any item engaging in it indicates very clearly that it is not seriously concerned with science.
DI(NR)
The Australian says this; The Australian says that; who cares?
Sam, I didn’t find the Spectator article, it found me, attached to an email as “interesting”.
Plimer’s grasp of Australian politics appears to be on a par with his understanding of climate science, if the ‘Spectator’ article is any indication. ‘Thanks in good measure to the influence of Plimer and his book — ‘I have politicians ringing me all the time’ — the Senate looks likely to reject the bill. If it does so twice, then the Australian government will collapse, a ‘double dissolution’ will be forced and a general election called.’
Gosh, I wonder if anyone’s told Kevin about this previously unknown constitutional provision.
Plimer’s sociological insights are equally bizarre:
‘It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’
Out of interest, can anyone link to a single serious discussion of AGW that cites Al Gore or ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ as an authority? The insults that Plimer hurls at his fellow-scientists are truly staggering and I can only conclude he has no personal interest now in engaging with other academics or having any respect within the academy.
I think the man has spent too much time out in the sun.
Unfortunately, Sam, a hell of a lot of people do care what The Australian says, including the news room at the ABC who seem to produce a constant stream of regurgitated Oz talking points.
Exactly David Irving.
The ABC news and current affairs staff seem to be on a direct feed from News Ltd in general and The Australian in particular, with a few notable exceptions.
Yep, ain’t that the truth, David..
One of the interesting and not much discussed issues raised by this brouhaha is just how far from old Agora ideal we’ve strayed. The principle extant in classical Greece was that one was to particpiate in conversation adhering to the principles of reason with a view to understanding one’s own limitations.
.
The vast majority of AGW discourse is engaged in by people who are at the bottom of the credibility spectrum, who mistakenly believe that AGW is a subset of left-right political discourse and care nothing for the facts and only want to win arguments.
.
This is true of the Left as well as the Right. Both are to blame. If one wishes to remain at a skeptical distance, to be genuinely skeptical as opposed to pigheadedly ignorant, one risks getting lumped with labels such as denialist lunatic. Naturally the denialist lunatics will return the favour by labelling anyone who believes this to be a big problem a luddite, a misanthrope, a religious fanatic and/or a subscriber to some secret Neo-Bolshevik cell.
.
This is the essence of the sandbox shitfight we laughingly call political debate in the Western world these days. It’s a war betwixt cranky toddlers. And what, does Aeschylus maintain, is the first casualty of war?
.
A lot of it boils down to the erosion in importance of critical thinking in education. It’s amazing how few people actually have no idea how to actually be skeptical. Skepticism is a beautiful thing and thanks to this shitfight, ‘skeptic’ is a word that’s coming to mean ‘pigheaded dingbat’.
Ken L – It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’
.
That’s not so bizarre. Political ideology has a lot in common with religious faith – both are doctrine driven. Pilmer’s stereotype of latte sippers is pretty standard and very tired but there is a valuable point there.
.
We do tend to believe things as a matter of faith. A lot of people, for example, who endorse evolution and the theory of natural selection, do so on exactly the same scientific basis as the Discovery Institute. That is, they have no idea why, they just believe it because ‘it’s written’.
.
A lot of people support AGW for the same reason. I did.
You are overlooking just a minor technicality Adrien, and that is that the science is settled, and you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that – just to be able to count.
The science isn’t settled Adrian. Climatology is new field and it’s difficult. All is not comprehensible, not even near it. AGW is an hypothesis. It’s a 9:1 bet for, but it’s still an hypothesis.
.
No I’m not a denialist. I am a conservationist and tend to have an emotional default to anything that directs the species’ attention to the damage it wreaks on the Earth but I must keep myself in check and be aware that my feelings do not equate to facts.
.
I am appalled by the PR skullduggery being deployed by various interests to muddy the waters, My point was simply that both sides of the debate are responsible for an unscientific take on science. The Right however are doing more. For every Mike Moore there’s a thousand Andrew Bolts.
If Plimer’s worst problem is criticism from Monbiot and Lambert, then he’s got nothing to worry about.
Adrien religions are concerned with supernatural explanations of human existence. An ideology is a set of beliefs about how human affairs ought to be ordered. There may be people for whom the reality or otherwise of climate change is a matter of ideology for all I know, although I can’t easily see how, but to state as a matter of fact that this is true of ‘urban populations’ is absurd, let alone to say it is a matter of religion on par with Christianity.
By extension, Plimer is arguing that people with genuine religious faith have no belief in climate change. The whole analogy is ridiculous.
I’ve been following this debate on a few blogs over the last couple of days, and I have noted in some of the comments that there is a possibility that Plimer may lose his professorship at the University of Adelaide. Other than these comments, there is no other mention of this on the web. Has anybody heard anything about this?
You see, I don’t understand why you can’t appreciate this, Adrien. Your position is a strange one because on the one hand you say you are not a denialist, yet on the other you claim AGW is a hypothesis and presumably not worth responding to. Well it’s always going to be an hypothesis until it’s way too late. You may be prepared to take the risk, but as a coherent position on the greatest issue of our times it’s ludicrous.
Ken – I don;t think analogy is ridiculous. Please give it a moment to sink in. I’m not supporting Pilmer’s agit-prop. It’s akin to Ann Coulter’s assertion that Darwinism is the religion of godless liberals.
.
Your distinction between political ideology and religion is true however my point is that the same doctrinairre refusals to reason obtain in both. In a way religion’s got an excuse because if you believe in an interventionist God then unreason is excused in a way that subscription to a political philosophy despite the facts is not.
.
Thing is that contemporary political ideology largely descends from religious affiliation. Not so far back political philosophy and religious adherence were indistinguishable.
.
It’s easier to see this phenomena in one’s opponents; witness the denialism of subscribers to neo-liberalism insisting that the GFC is entirely a product of Roosevelt’s reforms. Much harder is to see it in one’s own side. Thing is if your opponent practises obtuse unreason it forces you to do the same.
- Adolf Hitler
Brian, you need to update the following link:
Ian Enting, Professorial Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS), University of Melbourne Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ – Checking the Claims, to:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a9.pdf
This links to an extensive update, now at 38 pages. Well worth a careful read.
Adrian – Could you please provide a citation for that quote?
.
You may be prepared to take the risk, but as a coherent position on the greatest issue of our times it’s ludicrous.
.
Well it would be if your summary of it were accurate. It isn’t:
.
on the one hand you say you are not a denialist, yet on the other you claim AGW is a hypothesis and presumably not worth responding to.
.
I didn’t say it wasn’t worth responding to. It’s vital to respond to it. I say this: Yes it’s an hypothesis. There are data gaps. We have a far from complete picture of climate history, we have a far from complete picture of the factors that produce climatological phenomena.
.
But considering what we do know it is lunacy to fail to respond.
.
Your position is a strange one
.
It always is.
Reference to Ian Plimer in post now updated to version 1.9, thanks Barry Brook @ 22. The latest version has a very useful index.
Adrien @ 13:
That’s why I gave the qualifications and positions of the critics I listed in the post. I’ve included Tim Lambert because his criticisms of Plimer are numerous and scientists such as Ian Enting take him seriously.
You assert that AGW is a 9:1 bet presumably based on the IPCC report AR4. I’ll bet you that every one of the real scientists above would see it as more certain than that. I don’t think that the basic science is all that difficult. I gave my understanding of it in this comment.
But beyond that there are many issues within climate science that are far from settled. None of them look like candidates to upset the AGW paradigm, however.
silkworm @ 19, I imagine that Plimer must be an embarrassment to the University of Adelaide and it’s been suggested before that his place in the academy should be withdrawn. There would be a helluva stink, however, and I wonder who within the institution would make the move.
Adrien,
“As a layperson, the accounts of the science which I’ve read/heard in New Scientist and the news media, together with the opinions of commentators who I trust more than others, leads me to believe that the likelihood of AGW and the necessity to take action outweighs the possibility of its being false;”
Is not the same as a superstitious belief in a deity.
I can’t even believe I need to point this out. I thought you were better than that. Is that how you really think people who accept the concept of AGW think? or are you having a lend? Dude. Please.
adrien, the science it self is not settled.
From a socio/politicl point of view I agree with you, the argument is settled and as a duty of care, we have to take action.
Unfortunately in the larger debate about AGW, the intricacy of philosophy of science as well as that of its methodological development gets usually lost. Thus, the IPCC and Stern and Garnaut hve evaluated the evidence and made their judgement, that it is prudent to heed the general gist of evidence available at the present.
However, it is not to say that we may find at a later stage, that the predictions were not as accurate or not true at all (small chance). Alarmingly too though, there could be an error in anticipated climate change rate where we currently underestimate the impending change and that the train has already left the station.
It is all about odds and prudence/risk management. I have made the argument before that we went to war in Irak with smaller odds of WMDs as they are for AGM.
As for Plimer, I almost feel pity for him. He is a compulsive attention seeker, bully and media-ocker scientist, grand standing in an issue that is going to swallow him up and spit him out in a puff of hot CO2. I doubt you can ‘debate’ him, he will self destruct, a bit like a supernova.
But for all intense and purposes, the science IS settled, Adrien. That was my point that you were responding to with your hypothesis argument, which only makes sense if you are using it as an argument for inaction based on the belief that the science isn’t settled.
Lost that quote, but this probaly what it was referring <a href= http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21429&Cr=climate&Cr1=changeto.
adrian
The way I understand Adrian and as my argument goes, we are both ‘old fashioned’ skeptiks or as I prefer to say agnostic, so I don’t get associated with the Anti bandwagon.
Went to my local bookshop on Friday to buy Heaven and Earth. It is a new bookshop/cafe and very much into the more spiritual stuff (well targeted in the Mt Hawthorn/North Perth area). Anyway, looked in the climate/environment section – wasn’t there – all the good old Al Gore, Flannery, etc etc were there. Asked at the desk and found that, yes it was in stock – but they had classified it in the Management section. Very quaint little protest by them I thought. Considered not buying it from them given the pettiness of the effort to conceal it, but seeing as they had been so very helpful in finding it when I asked I handed over the plastic.
“There would be a helluva stink…”
Good.
Does anyone know if any Australian professor has been defrocked before? Would Plimer’s defrocking be a precedent?
I think it’s happened when they’ve been porking their students, but not for this kind of moral turpitude.
Adrian if you are arguing that normal acceptance of the collective opinions of experts as a guide to public policy is akin to religious faith in the supernatural, you’re just being silly, and citing Ann Coulter doesn’t really help your cause. If you are suggesting that AGW is in some kind of unique category where normal principles don’t apply, then you should explain why. Unless of course you also reject the consensus amongst economists that measures to counter AGW are eminently affordable in favour of Plimer’s faith-based belief that they will bankrupt the nation.
McBride?
No, he’s not. He a businessman seeking to protect his financial interests. See my comments on the Talk page at wikipedia for his book.
Shame on you! A quick check of your local library system shows numerous copies available for free. Spending money supporting this sort of antisocial, self-serving denialism is sheer stupidity.
AGW science is settled hey?
The “science” must be testable then. So set up a decent test to test it…. ahhh you can’t set one up because it’s hard to set up a “test” earth. But I have my computer models. But they can’t predict climate shifts such as ENSO, or IOD, so they must be flawed right? But I’m talking long term climate… Ahhhh… But the earth is heating up? But what about urban heat effect? But what about the satellite records? But they’re only a few decades worth. But what about our other weather records? They only go back 150 years? But the weather is going crazy right? Huh? Come on……
BUT THE PLANET IS DYING! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!
Brian – You assert that AGW is a 9:1 bet presumably based on the IPCC report AR4. I’ll bet you that every one of the real scientists above would see it as more certain than that. I don’t think that the basic science is all that difficult.
.
Can you please then tell me what the levels of solar irradiation were in 1856?
.
Helen – I can’t even believe I need to point this out. I thought you were better than that. Is that how you really think people who accept the concept of AGW think? or are you having a lend? Dude. Please.
.
No I accept the concept of AGW and have said so many times. I’m merely pointing out that adherence to political ideology is similar in many ways to adherence to religious ideology and science is a victim in both instances.
.
Part of the problem is Manichean morality which asserts that everything is either on the side of good or the side of bad. Therefore any nuanced position is liable to demonization because it may, in part, sounds like the enemy. Think about how much damage political ideologues have done on the basis of an assumption that their belief system is 100% reliable.
Science being science it is never really settled, but can only be accepted provisionally. Of course some results are more provisional than others.
That trace greenhouse gases play a major role in regulating global temperatures is pretty much rock solid. Likewise that we have increased the quantitites of these.
The extent of the effect these will have on the climate is pretty well constrained, but not absolutely.
What these expected changes will cause for human and natural systems is a little more uncertain again, although it varies system by system. Some are better understood, some less so.
But even at this stage, as a colleague of mine likes to say, the key question is not actually are we sufficiently certain that this will happen, but are we sufficiently sure that it won’t to be able to take the risk. It’s pretty clear that we aren’t.
Jacobson @ 36 – i think it is well worth it. Might even claim it on tax seeing as it was classified as a management text.
Ken – Adrian if you are arguing that normal acceptance of the collective opinions of experts as a guide to public policy is akin to religious faith in the supernatural, you’re just being silly,
.
My argument is more nuanced than that. What I’m saying is that we often buy into the opinions of experts for no better reason than we believe the world was created by a big dude with a long white beard.
.
and citing Ann Coulter doesn’t really help your cause.
.
I didn’t cite her. I used her as an example of something nefarious. She disgusts me.
.
If you are suggesting that AGW is in some kind of unique category where normal principles don’t apply, then you should explain why.
.
I’m saying the opposite of that. The theory of relativity might be displaced by something better tomorrow. Would we have a political shitfight over that?
.
Unless of course you also reject the consensus amongst economists…
.
There’s a consensus among economists?
.
that measures to counter AGW are eminently affordable in favour of Plimer’s faith-based belief that they will bankrupt the nation.
.
I’ve never said that.
.
Adrian – But for all intense and purposes, the science IS settled, Adrien. That was my point that you were responding to with your hypothesis argument, which only makes sense if you are using it as an argument for inaction based on the belief that the science isn’t settled.
.
Sorry but that’s nonsense. Reminding people that AGW is an hypothesis is simply making a point about where the science is. There’s no viable alternative to the AGW theory I’ve heard. Natural selection is also a theory (unlike evolution which is a fact), tomorrow something might explain things better and we’d discard it. If we were able to discover a way of ascertaining the history of solar irradiation and found that it was it that was responsible for the warming then the AGW hypothesis would be waylaid.
.
Lost that quote
.
That’s a shame. I’ll bet you a journalist and not a scientist wrote it.
.
AGAIN: I THINK AGW IS A BIG PROBLEM AND WE NEED A CARBON TAX!!!!!!! AND VIABLE SOLAR POWER AND…………
Adrien, frankly, you’re dribbling all over my thread and starting to become awfully boring.
Craig L @ 37, also boring. See Martin B @ 39, especially:
Brian I am not trying to dribble on your thread or bore anyone I am merely trying to make a point which people seem to persist in misunderstanding – intentionally. I frequently encounter such determination so I’ll just desist.
.
But my point is a good one and it has to do with something deeply troubling, something we’ve seen before in the cycles of history. I could mention Ash’ari philsopsophy or Trofim Lysenko but I guess it’s dull.
.
So instead perhaps some Leonard Cohen lyrics:
Over and out.
A stray question, if I may? How old is Plimer these days?
Is he a few ballerinas short of a Nutcracker Suite?
Adrien if by ‘nuanced’ you mean your argument is ‘incoherent’, I agree. Moreover you are the one who wants to introduce YOUR argument, whatever it may be; I was commenting on PLIMER’s argument, which is the subject of the post. ‘It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets’ may be labelled a lot of things but ‘nuanced’ is not one of them.
Adrien,
if you keep up with that kind of crap, I’m gonna break the comments policy in an involuntary Skinnerian response.
Para 1. Greenhouse theory is almost two centuries young, and the physical underpinnings are well established. Ockham’s Razor says the world will warm no matter what the source of GHG’s is. Those who believe the contrary need to show why GHGs emitted by humans will not warm the Earth when all others do. The hypothesis of several decades ago was that GHG injections would warm the earth (and do a bunch of other stuff). Here is the conclusion from the last IPCC Report:
There was no higher class of confidence given in the uncertainty guidance that the IPCC used. Humans have warmed the earth through radiative forcing and there’s no higher level of confidence on the scale the IPCC used. It is up to a person’s own inclination as to whether they reckon that is a risk worth acting on or not. You seem to think so. There is nothing here to prove.
Your statement on climatology (given that Australia’s first climatologists were active from the 1850s) must pertain to modelling. Climate models are a mere fifty years old. It must be hard to have any confidence in that computer you’re using, sunshine. Perhaps a chisel and slate might be more reliable.
Facts (Para 2) can be used to support theories or disprove them but they are not theories, which are inherently uncertain, so I’m not sure what you’re on about here. You seem to confuse fact, theory and hypothesis. As I wrote in an op-ed in The Australian last year, we cannot interpret earth observations (from satellites, from past proxies) without models, so to pretend they are naive tools that can be separated from the scientific process for purposes of verifying a theory about Earth systems is a total furphy.
Para 3 – what is this? Side A and side B are both wrong and muddying the science? How does subsequent advocacy affect the underlying scientific assessment of a risk?
I have noted that you often do the big yawn in capitals at the start of a new discussion to emphasise your ennui with discussions on science, then engage in troll-like behaviour further down that thread, trashing any logic within that discussion.
Comment #2 from you suggests it is fun to troll. Comment #13 is a call for reason and scepticism. #14 suggests there is no authority to knowledge (so any idiot can be a credible sceptic, I suppose). #16 I quote and fisk. #21 you descend to obtuse reasoning and give us a Godwin.
I suggest you spare us and take your periods elsewhere.
Adrien, sorry I was sharpish. I just lost 4-5 hours work over a computer foul-up. I blame the computer, but I think actually I tricked myself. Not an excuse, rather an explanation.
But for me I can’t see what solar irradiation in 1856 has to do with anything substantive. Similarly with all those things Craig mentioned. See Paul Norton @ 3.
And I noticed others were getting frustrated.
Now I’m getting abuse? Have I been abusive? I’m merely stating my argument and responding to those who’ll engage with me. Is that wrong?
.
I am not challenging the AGW hypothesis which I endorse (altho’ I am entitled to do so). I am not trying to say do nothing about it, I am not attempting to emphasise ennui. I rarely use capitals and have never done so for that purpose.
.
I used the capitals so you’d actually bloody well undestand my position but you do not because you do not wish to see to.
.
I am making a point about doctinairre thinking and its impact on reason. Doctrinairre thinking impedes reason. It acts as a CRM 114 discriminator by which information is pre-processed before given due and disinterested consideration. The result is that ideas and assertions are often misrepresented or categorcially excluded.
.
And for making this point I get: if you keep up with that kind of crap, I’m gonna…
.
Geez!
.
I’ll concede you point viz the age of climatology. I should’ve expressed myself more clearly. I was specifically referring to the study of non-linear systems which I believe is still pretty early. I was also referring to the paucity of historical data.
.
But forget it. That is my final comment on this matter. I’ve been thru this with the likes of Currency Lad. Lots of hairsplitting over the peripheral. Anything to avoid confronting the central argument.
.
It’s quite disappointing really.
Elise @ 44, according to Wiki, 63.
That’s alright Brian. It was uncharacteristic. I’d be cranky too if a chunk of work went down the hole.
.
I’m ceasing. My point wasn’t an AGW argument (which I find mostly dull). It was about something else. But never mind.
Adrien, thanks, you’ve made your obtuse point and basked in the attention, now go away. Troll.
I think we should treat deniers like someone who farted out loud at a formal fnction.
Better late than never,I suppose when treating Climate Deniers as if they are never at a Formal Function!? But what if the Formal Function has pickled onions as the main course,subject and reason for the formal occasion! Whereas laughing out aloud wouldn’t be considered disruptive,but, the pretence of being natural over being formal!? So if Plimer, the error maker, the characterisor, the businessman,the embarrassment to Adelaide University,the cheat at debates,the non-scientific etc.does and says all this with some over-burdening ego,then he must have a serious problem of not knowing who he is!? Well ,the only point I can make,if all that is proven and real beyond any moment of doubt is…I don’t like you buggars,and if your great wisdom reflects all that could be wisdom and reason on the matter,then something is badly lacking.It wont be pickled onions!So even if the future is somehow influenced by you,I will try my damdest to restrict the details of that future,whilst your futurology gets imposed.If Brooks and others are not engaging in Characterisations often that are pretty insulting..what then are they doing!?
Shorter Philip Travers. Nanu Nanu.
Phillip, you really shit me. I read your posts and most of them are such inconstructible crap that I resolve to never again bother to read them and then stupidly I do and you just occasionally make sense, and even amuse. You need someone to dong you on the head when you start to become totally obscure. And someone to feed you a chocolate when you do something good, like form a coherant sentence, or make sense, or amuse us, or define a paragraph.
Anyway, some of # 53 amused me.
P Travers:
I think you might be onto something there!
Regarding the question of, ‘is the science settled?’
here is an interesing quote
And here is an interesting 2009 study.
I suspect the science is as settled as much as we could expect about the cause of the warming trend. There is no obvious test or experient that is crying out to be done which we might expect could significantly improve our understanding on that.
The evidence from here on looks to be incremental. And the existing evidence is extremely strong which indicate CO2 as the main driver on the long term trend in rising temperatures.
The scientific questions still remains,’how much more warming?’
Mark Byrne @57, that 2009 study was a very interesting link! In particular, the question #2 about whether humans were the major cause for the observed climate change picked up something. The smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geologists.
Well, well, well. Now, wasn’t that a surprise! I had wondered when someone would point out that a few too many of the strident denialists are geologists. Including Plimer. Why would economic geologists be a noteworthy profession to speak against AGW?
Economic geologists are those who study mineral deposits and sometimes oil reservoirs (although they usually call themselves petroleum geologists, petrologists and other things). Economic geologists deal in the minute recording of % mineral composition and location, to work out the viability of mineral deposits, typically for mining companies. They don’t deal in long-term trends or dynamic modelling (as IPCC uses), they deal in the bottom line and the current data. “Is this an economically viable deposit, or isn’t it?” type of thing.
Economic geologists are by far the best paid of the geological fraternity, thanks to mining company sponsorships, consultancies, professorships, direct employment, etc. Mining companies have quite a big stake in how we decide to handle climate change.
James Hardy and asbestos mining gives us a clue about behaviour of SOME people with information that jeopardises the company future.
Join the dots…?
Thank you, MB @ 57 for the comment re settled science. So true and most in the academia know it too. The real bugbear is not in the science but in the public, as your link clearly demonstrates. This is what I was obliquely referring to @27 in regards to Philosophy of Science and the self destruction of Plimer. What is relevant in those figures shown, is that nearly 40% of the public is not taking any action as they believe in a big fat No. Further, there would be substantial number in the Yes category , that do not taking any action either. The high number of public denial is where the focus of the debate should be and not on Plimer’s Cabaret.
Elise, you’ll find financial conflict in any profession. In my books it is between the people and political leadership. The debate should be debased from science onto the cold hard facts of risk management, the odds and the magnitude of the gamble. Being a sporting nation surely we should manage to discuss that.
I found this a good argument, skip right down to second fallacy, half way down second column.
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/ClimateFAQ/More_Hot_Air.pdf
I nearly forgot to mention, but I’ve put an update at the end of the post. Don’t miss the piece by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate.
I note that Monbiot has an update on the Monbiot-Plimer stoush.