Turnbull made a strong case both for the absurdity of denialism and for the real stakes of the climate change debate. He compared climate change skepticism to a pub conversation where smoking is alleged to be harmless because Uncle Ernie puffed like the proverbial chimney and lived to be 95:

And this is actually — this war on science and on scientists which is being conducted is much worse than the case of person who ignores his doctor’s advice and follows the advice of his friend down the pub, drawing on the life experience of the fortunate Uncle Ernie.

Because the consequences of getting our response to climate change wrong will not likely be felt too severely by us, or at least not most of us, but will be felt painfully and cruelly by the generations ahead of us. And the people in the world who will suffer the most cruelly will be the poorest and the people who have contributed the least to the problem. There is an enormous injustice here. When people try and suggest to you that climate change is not a moral issue, they are wrong. It is an intensely moral issue raising grave moral issues.

Those of us who do not believe the CSIRO is part of an international Green conspiracy to undermine Western civilisation or do not believe that leading scientists like Will Steffen are subversives should not be afraid to speak out, and loudly, on behalf of our scientists and our science. We must not allow ourselves to be deluded on this issue.

Interestingly, Essential Research found this week, in a question commissioned by Channel Ten, that 46% of respondents are more concerned than they were two years ago about the environmental effects of global warming.

At the same time, of course, public opinion has moved strongly against carbon pricing, or at least against the Gillard government’s carbon price plan. (It would be interesting to see if there were more support for carbon pricing in the abstract, though in practice hard to separate that out from the actual carbon tax proposals on the table).

What accounts for this?

It is largely a matter, I’d suggest, of communications errors from the government (and to a lesser degree from other advocates of carbon pricing). It’s not just the litany of reasons why Julia Gillard has a trust problem (most of which are traceable back to the manner of her ascension to the top job). It goes deeper than that.

Three fundamental strategic errors have been made.

The first was to switch the conversation away from the deleterious effects of global warming. Perhaps this was a response to the noise of the so-called ‘debate on the science’. But it’s had the effect of sundering measures to mitigate climate change from the issue itself. Turnbull, rightly, talks about the moral challenges of climate change. Labor, since Kevin Rudd dropped the ball, is unable to.

A related error is to be reactive and frame the plan in terms of economic reform. This stems from the usual round of criticism from newspapers and commentators that the Labor government pales into insignificance compared to Hawke and Keating. But playing the game in terms of tax feeds the critique. So, when the Clean Energy Future detail was released, everyone rushed to the online calculator to see if they’d be ‘better off’ or ‘worse off’. It became all about short term gain and pain, and reinforced the narrative that Labor was ignoring cost of living pressures.

Again, an own goal.

(Incidentally, it was very regrettable that more effort wasn’t made to make it clear that the modelling which produced the numbers about ‘cost to households’ made the assumption that there would be no changes to consumption patterns. Choosing cleaner energy, which will be able to be done off the grid as well as by installing solar panels or whatever, could well, and in fact should over time, reduce costs.)

And here’s the third error; another one where strategy has been shaped by being to reactive to the agenda of carbon pricing opponents. Releasing modelling, and highlighting it so much, renders the debate both abstract and static. Talk of % increases in employment or whatever pales against the putative reality of lost jobs (and the employment insecurity which drives those concerns). It would have been much better to communicate some concrete examples of people working in ‘Green Jobs’, to highlight the skills needed to re-equip workers and re-equip kids for prosperous and sustainable futures, and generally to shape a message which resonates with the everyday. And makes a contrast with a positive future and what lies ahead for us if nothing is done.

What to do? Turnbull has actually pointed the way. Whether Labor is or is not capable of taking a leaf out of his book is moot. But Labor is not the only force involved in the climate change and carbon price debates. Others should take heed.

Update: Cross-posted at The Drum.

Tony Abbott on Four Corners last night:

TONY ABBOTT (at press conference): As leader, I am not frightened of an election, and I am not frightened on an election on this issue.

MARIAN WILKINSON: Tony Abbott believed scientists on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC were, ‘alarmist’ and tapped into headline grabbing attacks on the climate science in the media.

But despite those attacks the scientific consensus on climate change remains firm, says Kurt Lambeck, the outgoing President of Australia’s Academy of Science. This afternoon, the Academy released a new report written by some of Australia’s top climate scientists, backing the key findings of the UN’s IPCC.

DR MICHAEL RAUPACH, PRESIDENT, AUST. ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 2006-2010: One is that global warming is occurring, ah, that’s the temperatures in the last century or so have been going up. I think there is no ah, debate about that point anymore. The role of um, CO2 in that is also widely accepted and the fact that the ah, human input of CO2 into the atmosphere is a major contributor of that is a well accepted fact by the committees.

MARIAN WILKINSON: Co-chair of the report is Dr Michael Raupach, a senior CSIRO scientist.

DR MICHAEL RAUPACH: One way of posing a challenge is that if we continue business as usual emissions, then it’s very likely that the world by the end of this century ah, will be somewhere between three and five degrees warmer than it is now.

MARIAN WILKINSON: Tony Abbott brought his party together on climate change by promising he would act, but without putting a price on carbon. He says he will match the government’s commitment to cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020. But he remains fundamentally sceptical that human activities are largely responsible for climate change.

TONY ABBOTT: I accept that climate change is real. I think government needs to do, ah to take meaningful measures ah, to combat it and that’s…

MARIAN WILKINSON: You’re dispute is the role of man’s intervention is that correct?

TONY ABBOTT: Sure, but, but that’s not really relevant at the moment. Ah, we have agreed ah to get a 5 per cent emissions reduction target. That’s, that’s a bipartisan position. Ah, I think we can get it, ah, by the direct action measures that I’ve outlined and the interesting thing is that the only major political party with a credible policy in this area is the Coalition. Um, the government says that climate change is ah, the greatest moral challenge of our time, but they don’t have serious policy to deal with it.

MARIAN WILKINSON: Do you still believe that the views of the IPCC scientists are alarmist?

TONY ABBOTT: Um, I, I certainly think that there is a credible scientific counterpoint, but in the end, um, I’m not going to win ah, ah, an argument over the science, I’ll leave that to the scientists.

MARIAN WILKINSON: One last question on that because ah, you have said very publicly ah, before this that you believe the earth is cooling not warming and you have cited the work of ah, Professor Ian Plimer on this. Do you still think there is a credible case for that?

TONY ABBOTT: Um, I, I have pointed out in the past, ah that ah, there was that high year um, a few years ago, ah, and the warming ah, if you believe the various measuring ah, organisations, ah, hasn’t increased, but again ah, the the point is not um, um, the science, ah the point is how should government respond and we have a a credible response that will achieve a 5 per cent reduction by 2020 and the government doesn’t.

It’s astonishing to me that these remarks didn’t make a splash in today’s media, and surely a marker for how far backwards we’ve moved in the political debate over climate change. No doubt part of the reason Abbott’s comments slipped through to the keeper was Labor’s own weakness in this area.

The venue was the Hilton Hotel Grand Ballroom, and attendance was about 60% of capacity, that is roughly half the number of people who attended last time I was there, when it was packed to 120% of capacity for the launch of MySpace (remember MySpace? Neither do I…)

At any rate, I am pleased to report that the debate was indeed just that, a real debate, conducted civilly, in front of an attentive and polite crowd, and well moderated by Alan Jones.

It was neither the rabble-rousing denialist circus some feared it would be, nor an embarrassing excursion into Monckton’s many personal foibles. It was instead, a robust, articulate presentation and dissection of the factual content behind Monckton’s denialist propositions. Both speakers were modest, neither hyperbolic, and both approached the question in an open and non-dogmatic fashion.

In two fifteen-minute presentations, each speaker addressed the proposition that “manmade global warming is a real threat”. The substance of the debate hinged, I am happy to say, on a scientific question concerning the degree of climate sensitivity to differing concentrations of CO2. Namely, Monckton has independently calculated a level of climate sensitivity that is lower than the IPCC’s estimate, by a factor of approximately 7-8 times. Dr Lambert showed Monckton’s calculation to be based on a misunderstanding of data provided by a satellite scientist, one Professor Rachel Pinker (2007). Dr. Lambert also showed that Monckton’s thesis depends entirely on the climate sensitivity being a very low estimate, while the other denialist darling, Ian Plimer’s, thesis depends on climate sensitivity being a very high estimate. They cannot both be right, and perhaps both are wrong.

What followed was about 90 minutes of questions from the floor, which again was handled very calmly and coolly by all the proponents. Some of the questions were truly odd, and showed a very low level of understanding of science, and a very high level of paranoia and confusion among the (predominantly old and angry) audience members:

1. One gentleman attempted to suggest that, since a lot of the world’s carbon is in the oceans, it is water vapour evapourating from the oceans, and not fossil fuels, that is causing warming (what is causing all that extra evapouration, he didn’t say). Neither proponent had the heart to tell the gentleman that water vapour is made of, well, water, not CO2.
2. Another questioner thought that the 1976 international treaty banning weather-control devices (anyone heard of this?) showed that nations already had the technology to control the weather, so why aren’t they using it?
3. Another questioner said that our government is being totalitarian about environmental issues, and he lived under Soviet occupation in the former Czechoslovakia, so he should know.
4. Another questioner wanted to know whether Dr. Tim Lambert wanted to stop him from procreating with his wife (ewww).
5. Another questioner wanted to know if continental drift wasn’t the real driver of sea levels.

Contrary to many who worry about functions like this providing a platform for denialists, I think the debate generated far more light than heat (sic). It is a credit to the way both proponents, and the moderator, and indeed the audience, conducted themselves that it was a fruitful and enlightening discussion.

I think perhaps the most important thing that came out of the debate is that it takes a lot of wind out of denialist sails when they meet a real-life supporter of AGW science and realise that we are not trying to drag civilisation back to the stone age, prevent people from having babies, wreck the economy, keep the developing nations in poverty, or any of the other shibboleths that drive the denialist circus. As Tim Lambert explained to the audience, as a computer scientist, he is first and foremost an engineer, and it is an interesting and important engineering problem to work out how to get as many people as possible enjoying a high standard of living, without trashing the planet in the process. That’s all.

It’s also apparent that many denialists have a huge chip on their shoulder about, apparently, “totalitarian” attempts to shut them down or the “refusal” of the media to cover their activities. This despite the fact that they had a full public debate, in a prime CBD location, with media in attendance, moderated by a top-rating radio host. AFAIK, no brownshirts or greenshirts stormed the Hilton and stopped the debate. We all went out for coffee afterwards.

It never hurts to put a human face on one’s opponents, and this forum did exactly that. The denialist audience (and it was about 95% denialist) saw the human face of AGW science: people grappling with data, wrestling with hard questions, and not trying to take away their ability to fly in aeroplanes or have babies. For that reason, I think that today science and understanding were the winners, and so really, everybody won.

Go read, as they say.

He also pings the blurring of the opinion/analysis distinction at the ABC, where Bolt seems to wear two hats – as some sort of putative student of climate science and as ballast for the famous right wing balance.

Which begs the question – if Bolt is so easily fooled, why does the ABC or any media outfit attempting to be informative use him? Tabloids I can understand – they’re rubbish from arsehole to breakfast time in the serious debate stakes, it’s entertainment not serious news and analysis. But the ABC?

It’s not only a sad indictment on what passes for quality debate on public affairs in the MSM in Australia, but it’s also a massive slap in the face to the intelligent conservatives and those from the intellectual right who end up having their political views represented in the public sphere by what amounts to a form of mediocrity. A result, mind you, that was always going to be inevitable when the pursuit of “political balance” on these programs transformed into a lazy affirmative action program for pundits with conservative leanings.

Conservatives and those on the right deserve better from our flagship current affairs programs – it’s not like we have a shortage of professionally skilled, media friendly folks from the right. A quick look through the halls of the IPA and CIS demonstrates that pretty clearly.

Tamino at Open Mind tracked down the source of the story.

According to Tamino the guy behind it all drew a trend line like this:

It seems to me that you can have any story you like if that is how you go about it. Please note that in the National Snow and Ice Center graph above, the reference line is the 1979-2000 average, not 1979.

The more important issue is the summer minimum ice coverage, not the winter maximum. In summer the sea is absorbs heat causing global warming and the female polar bears need ice for hunting to build up their weight for birthing and suckling. In terms of minima the news is bad as shown in this graph:

I used that graph in a post in June last year subsequently updated in September and again in November.

There is plenty of information in those posts but the best graph to show where the trend has come from and where it is going in relation to the projections of just a few years ago is shown in a graph from a Dr Sorteberg via Carbon Equity:

Ice coverage has been decreasing since the 1960s. In 2007 the trend line fell out of bed. There was a small recovery in 2008, as there was in 2006 from the then record low of 2005.

We need to keep in mind that “ice coverage” is defined at 15% coverage or more, quite a low standard. Also the ice is thinning rapidly. From memory it was about 3.5 metres thick in the 1960s compared with 1 metre in 2007. In 2008 the ice apparently thinned even more with an estimated further loss in volume of 10%. So the ultimate breakup of the ice in summer does seem possible in the near future.

While sea ice in the Antarctic does appear to be increasing this is no reason for celebration as the links provides by MikeM show. The bottom line appears to be that both the Greenland and the Antarctica ice sheets are losing mass. I went into some detail about this last July.

I’m not going to link to the original story, which you can get from Open Mind, nor to a less than edifying exchange on a local blog, linked from this comment.

I sometimes think deliberately misleading the public should be an indictable offense. But what do you do about the reckless, the careless, the ignorant and the muddle-headed?

Update 1: This graph shows the increase of atmospheric CO2 which kicks on from the 1950s. Dr Sorteberg’s graph suggests that there was a quick response in Arctic ice loss dating from that time. See comment below.

I used the graph in in this post. I’m sorry, I can’t recall it’s source.

Update 2: Following Huggy’s comment @ 4 (see also my comment @ 12) here is a graph showing sea ice age from 2007 to 2008 from my post of last November.

The white area, signifying ice coverage of 15-50%, has increased markedly within the basin, also an astonishing decrease in third-year plus ice. These are worries. If the increase in first-year stays to grow old, that’s good, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Since we last looked at the Arctic ice coverage the equinox has been passed, the sun has set and the sea is icing up again quite nicely considering the ice loss fell just short of the 2007 record.

Nevertheless, a record was probably broken and a serious one at that. The volume of the ice in 2008 was very likely lower than in 2007. I’ve used the terms “probably” and “likely” because as far as I can see they didn’t actually do a survey as they did in 2007 when they found much of the ice only a metre thick.

The problem can be seen in the markedly increased presence of one-year ice and areas where the coverage is less than 50%:

On the upside the young ice still reflects the heat of the sun. I would point out, however, that the criterion for coverage is ice >15%, so if you compare the white areas, signifying 15-50% the total reflectivity in 2007 and 2008 was probably similar.

On the downside it makes a longer term revival of the ice coverage well-nigh impossible. As Jay Zwally says:

“The reason volume is so important is new ice can’t get thick enough in the winter to survive next summer’s melting,” he says. “It takes seven to eight years for sea ice to reach its equilibrium thickness of around four to five meters.”

This may auger well for shipping, but not so well for release of methane clathrates.

And now a new study finds that blame can be attributed directly to humans for the warming of the polar caps.

Yes, the Antarctic is warming too.

Yet another study has found a rising frequency and intensity of arctic storms over the last half century. This is attributed to increasingly warmer waters and results in the acceleration of the rate of arctic sea ice drift out into the warmer North Atlantic waters.

It also involved deeper mixing of ocean levels. Sirpa Hakkinen, one of the scientists involved, seemed to be a bit excited about the potential of this to increase carbon storage in the ocean. Personally I can’t see any joy over increasing acidity of the ocean, nor over the presumed likelihood that deeper mixing might promote the release of methane.

And it indicates the presence of a positive feedback loop. Warmer waters lead to increased storminess, which leads to loss of sea ice to the North Atlantic which leads to warmer waters. What we need is cooler water coming in the Bering Strait end, which means a cooler Pacific, which means a cooler everything.

You may recall when we looked at this recently that 2005 was the previous record low before the astonishing decline in 2007 which inspired glaciologist Jay Zwally to suggest that the Arctic could be almost ice free by the end of summer 2012 and that “the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”

2007 was an exceptional year weatherwise in the Arctic with unusual winds keeping the skies relatively clear and tending to blow the ice into the warm North Atlantic. Given that there was quite extensive ice coverage in the subsequent northern winter and 2008 is a coolish year one would expect a considerable recovery. This daily updated graph at Philip Sutton’s GreanLEAP Arctic watch site shows that the low will probably fall short of the 2007 low. Nevertheless it’s unequivocally bad news.

I said in the previous post that “the ice mass has reduced by some 80% since the 1960s and is declining rapidly, while the thickness has reduced from about 3.5 metres to one metre”. One indicator of the direction of the trend is the age of the ice. This image from NASA via Wikipedia illustrates the problem:

In the mid- to late 1980s, over 20 percent of Arctic sea ice was at least six years old; in February 2008, just 6 percent of the ice was six years old or older.

This animation from Wikipedia shows the loss of old ice, the leaking of ice into the North Atlantic and the receding ice in the face of the inflow of warm water through the Bering Strait.

This image (not sure where I got it from) shows the extent and age of the ice at the 2007 summer minimum:

Just how serious the 2007 event was is shown in this image, again from Wikipedia:

It always bothers me that the usual 1979-2000 baseline itself contains considerable melting. The whole story of where the trend has come from and where it is now in relation to the projections of just a few years ago is best shown in this graph from a Dr Sorteberg via Carbon Equity:

I can well believe that this is what the Arctic summer minimum might look like in 2013 (from Philip Sutton at GreanLEAP):

Elsewhere Barry Brook has a neat post with lots of links; Open Mind also takes a look.

Deltoid and Open Mind continue their war on deniers.

Update: This story has been updated here.