85 / I now retire …

… from the discussion on climate change scepticism; this is my last post. I had been sent an email with a climate sceptic's message and I responded thus: On climate change we have to agree to disagree. I have a couple of blogs on that issue … but I have to say, I am sooo over climate change scepticism and I must ask you - with all due respect - please don't forward any more emails relating to that issue to me.

The response I received is in blue; my answer to that is below it … however, I wanted to give the respondent the last word … and then one thing led to another and we ended up with quite an involved debate; for better or for worse …

Carsten,
OK. I know many of the climate change supporters do not wish to hear facts that do not support their position. Facts are facts, propaganda is not factual by definition.
xxx

Hi xxx,

it is interesting what you say about climate change supporters not wishing to hear facts that do not support their position. A delicious irony - that of course is the line used against climate change sceptics … what I find fascinating is your reversal of the argument. There are facts that lead most scientists to agree that climate change is occurring and that it is - largely - caused by human activity. The fact is: 'The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950.' This fact is denied by climate change sceptics … but there are no facts that support climate change scepticism. You say, Facts are facts - precisely. But from climate change sceptics there are only opinions as to why they dis-believe the facts presented by scientists. Climate change scepticism is the denial of facts in the climate debate - that's why it's also called climate change denial - without there being any facts on the table that support climate change denial. Indeed - you talk about facts - I ask you: What serious proof, what facts are there that climate change does not occur? All so called 'proof' is anecdotal - like the ditty from x about a weather report from the 1930th talking about warming occurring already then (which, curiously, is being rolled out as proof climate change doesn't exist!) This stuff, xxx, insults your intelligence, and mine. Stephen Colbert coined a term for this: Truthiness, where you believe stuff from your guts, your intuition - not from the available facts: "It used to be everyone was entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts; that's no longer the case; facts do not matter anymore; perception is everything - there is a dichotomy: What is important? What you want to be true or what is true?"

For support you may point to Ian Plimer's book (I concentrate on Plimer as the 'posterboy of cc deniers'; I started researching him when our opposition leader Tony Abbott gave him an airing, see below) - admittedly I haven't read it; you may criticise me for that, my response would be: I don't know anything about climate science, thus I listen to experts - but I worry about his 'science', mainly because his background is mining … I understand he is director of three mining companies. He is on record for saying that the ETS could decimate the mining industry, probably destroy it totally; hmmm. By the way, industry getting destroyed and the economy falling into decline when climate change is acted upon, is a negative mind-set specific to the Right. But check this out:

2009 July 27

In today's newspaper Peter Hartcher reports

(Act now on climate: Obama)

The Obama Administration's climate change

negotiator has warned that any country that

delays enacting laws will miss out on a huge

wave of investment waiting for the regulatory

dam to break … "in our view you can become

an economic winner by acting," Todd Stern said.

Last year the International Energy Agency

estimated investment of $US26,000 billion

would go into new energy infrastructure

worldwide by 2030.

For as far as I know Plimer's book is criticised as unscientific, inaccurate, inconsistent and based on obsolete research; in fact it's been called, 'a study in how not to be objective.' His work is referred to by climate scientists (of which he is not one, climate science is not his expertise - engineering, mining and metallurgy is; he's published about 60 academic papers, none on climate change, certainly nothing on climate change that is peer reviewed - now, xxx, would you in your field trust any publication that is not peer reviewed? It's a rhetorical question, of course) i.e. when it is peer reviewed his work is deemed naive, reflecting a poor understanding of climate science and relying on recycled and distorted arguments that have been repeatedly refuted. This is the issue addressed in University tackles sceptics' arguments. Plimer argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable - true, true: 'Sea levels were around 70 metres higher 45 million years ago, and 130 metres lower 21,000 years ago, for example, but this is no reason for inaction now. Most of the strong climate changes in the past were either local or regional. If global, they took many thousands of years to occur. There is no evidence of a global temperature rise of 5 degrees in a century, as could happen now …' he's just - well not just, but recklessly - using a small part of the argument to either knowingly mis-inform, or in ignorance

(I urge you to read that document.)

Please note that Plimer's book was not published by reputed publishers - mainstream publishers wouldn't touch it - why? Because his work is not factual - but rather unreliable, subjective and just spin he peddles from an emotive angle (see above) … and consider this prime example of spin: Plimer said that, 'Pacific island nations are seeing changes in relative sea levels not because of global warming but due to other factors, such as "vibration consolidating the coral island sands" … does he offers proof, facts, a scientific study to support this claim? I'm not aware of it; if he does, I'd like to see it.

I'm interested in Plimerism, it fascinates me how intelligent people get caught up in his emotive, widely refuted non-science; like Tony Abbott, "I think that in response to the IPCC alarmist view, there've been quite a lot of other reputable scientific voices. Now, not everyone agrees with Ian Plimer's position, but he is a highly credible scientist (perhaps - but in which field?) and he has written what seems like a very well-argued book refuting most of the claims of the climate catastrophists." The last part of that statement is bewildering, in view of the consensus in the scientific community regarding his work. Incidentally, consider this: As regards Copenhagen, Plimer spoke there at a rival conference for sceptics. While Copenhagen attracted 33,200 delegates, the rival sceptics conference was attended by 60 people (15 journos, 18 speakers, 27 audience.) What does that mean? I won't spell it out.

Dear Carsten,

I did not know you would place my brief personal reply to you on the net without my permission, otherwise I would have been more explicit but I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to you one more time and I request my reply be published unedited. So here it is, I will look out for it on your excellent blog.

The Climate Change debate is an intellectually dishonest debate fueled and based on politics.
The left are climate change advocates, it suits their ideology perfectly - anticapitalism, anti-big business, more government control. This is what the left has been seeking for decades and now the left have grabbed onto the vehicle that can take them there - climate change. This suits the UN also as, under the Emission Tax Scheme, it guarantees the UN almost unlimited funds to continue their ineffectual bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, the ideologues have overdone it. Stretching climate models beyond their limit and excluding data that does not fit their ideology. Prof. Phil Jones from the prestigious East Anglia Climate Change Unit in the UK, one of the most senior IPCC scientists with more than $20m in grant money to study climate change this year, has been stood down pending investigation due to the revelation of emails between himself and other climate change scientists including the infamous Dr. Robert Mann, who invented the infamous hockey stick graph (extrapolated climate change data from a single pine tree which was the pivotal data in Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and supposed to show the correlation between carbon dioxide and the rise in global temperature). It has now been shown that these two senior climate change scientists not only excluded data which was contrary to their climate change ideology but also discussed how they might undermining the reputation of editors in peer review journals who did not agree with them. The hockey stick graph by Robert Mann has been withdrawn quietly by the UN's IPCC in the middle of the night so as to not draw much attention to this fact. As a scientist, I have never seen scientific fraud on such a grand scale. If the two top climate change scientists were fudging the data, how many of the lesser important climate change scientists have been doing the same thing. I bet there has been a scramble to delete records of similar emails around the world by hundreds of other so-called climate change scientists.

The FACT that Carsten Burmeister has not read Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer is a sad indictment of the state of the debate. If you are writing a blog concerning climate change, surely one would seek out an opposing view, especially a leading opposing view. I am fascinated by the statement of Burmeister that "his background is mining". Plimer is one of Australia's top scientists (a geologist by training) and his book covers about 20 scientific disciplines which impact on climate change and his book has over 2000 references. As a person holding 4 degrees in science myself including a PhD in chemistry, I can appreciate the complexity of the scientific debate. But if you don't open your eyes to alternative views and data or don't understand science or the principles of cause and effect in science - then it is perfectly understandable to form one's views on video bits of glaciers falling into the sea as "proof" of climate change. It is a mistake for Burmeister to say "but there are no facts that support climate change scepticism" if you don't look for them or close your mind to facts. It is all too easy to dismiss facts as "propaganda" simply on the basis that the information does not fit your belief system. Also, if you are claiming that something occurs, it is totally illogical to argue that because you have not proven that something does not occur, the argument is proven that something has occurred. The onus for proving that climate change is occurring belongs to those that make the claim.

The world has always seen climate change. This is not the debate. The debate is whether or not man made carbon dioxide has caused the claimed recent increase in global temperature. I have said this over and over to climate change supporters and they don't seem to get it. There is no dispute that that the world has seen much larger increases and decreases in global temperature than we are seeing now over the last 1000 years.

I say the debate is intellectually dishonest because nobody in Copenhagen mentioned the P word (population). Every new person on this planet consumes resources and pollutes. Why not consider restricting population growth? Why not consider limiting meat production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meat production alone produces more greenhouse gas impact than all modes of transport combined, air, land and sea. So, if you really believe in climate change, why don't you start talking about restricting population and meat production? After all, it was the increase in population growth which must have caused this climate change problem (if it exists). The answer: the real underlying aim of the lefties is to restrict capitalism, wealth redistribution (that is why some sections of our society would actually get 120% compensation under a planned ETS) and increase government control. Climate change is just the rationale, the moral high ground for doing so.

I urge everyone interested in climate change to read Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth.

Lastly, I am sick and tired to be accused of not caring for the environment because I do not believe there is sufficient scientific proof of climate change. I do care for the environment and I live my life accordingly and teach my children to do the same. Let's hope that the dire predictions of the climate change supports do not come to pass but let's all keep an open mind, examine the data and have an honest and sensible intellectual debate devoid of politics.

I have to take issue with one aspect of the above reply - and it does not relate to climate change, or scepticism there-of. The writer says: The FACT that Carsten Burmeister has not read Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer is a sad indictment of the state of the debate.

If you are writing a blog concerning climate change, surely one would seek out an opposing view, especially a leading opposing view.

I anticipated this critcism and responded to it then and there in my blog. My point is this: I can well comment on issues without reading the scientific books pertaining to those issues.

For instance, the above argument is used in the debate about creationism; one should inform oneself about opposing views etc.

I would argue that - while I neither read On the Origin of Species, nor the Bible - there is enough informed discussion available on the subject, by individuals whose expertise that field is. I can draw from those discussions to form an informed opinion; same with cc.

Fair comment if you are talking about a theory in general but you said there are no facts disputing climate change and, indeed, the facts disputing climate change are contained in Plimer's book.

But we are turning in circles now; the point I made before is this: it's no use referring me to Plimers book, I would not know what I'm looking at - I know nothing about climate science. It is for that reason that I turn to the reviews/comments by climate scientists who do know what they are looking at, and their verdict is:

… unscientific, inaccurate, inconsistent, based on obsolete research

… a study in how not to be objective

… naive, reflecting a poor understanding of climate science, relying on recycled and distorted arguments that have been repeatedly refuted. Now, those are not my words; indeed, I would not be qualified to make those judgements … this is learned scholars, academics speaking.

I cannot believe you said that.

As an intelligent person, even without a scientific background, you could easily appreciate the data and arguments in Plimer's book.

If you take it upon yourself to be a commentator, you owe it to your audience to search for the facts. I believe you have not done so because you are committed to one point of view. Plimer's book is intended for public consumption and is an easy, but hard read.

By the way Prof. Plimer is an Emeritis Professor of geology (there are not many Professors of such high rank around), if you read his book you will understand why an understanding of geology is central to an understanding of climate change. Reducing him to a person "with a background in mining" is as deceptive as calling you a "happy snap person". I believe you owe your readers an apology.

I do not (and I did not) put in question Plimer's qualifications, what I said was: (Abbott refers to Plimer as …) a highly credible scientist (perhaps - but in which field?)

When I say he has a background in mining, it is in respect of this information (Wikipedia): 'Plimer went to work at the Broken Hill mines, ultimately as chief research geologist at North Broken Hill. He has maintained an interest in the Broken Hill mining district throughout his career. He is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals.' Furthermore: 'He has published approximately 60 academic papers (none on climate change)'. I assume those paper were peer reviewed; however, when his book on cc is peer reviewed, the verdict is as quoted below. As an example, look at this (Wikipedia): 'In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book in which he claims that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide, rather than factoring other issues such as solar variation. This is disputed by scientists involved in climate change research.' This shows you how people like myself (non-scientists, non-academics) have to rely on insiders' verdicts.

You accuse me of being selective in my reading … fair enough, in this circumstance I think I have a good justification for that; but, xxx, how about yourself, have you read: Responses to Questions & Objections on Climate Change

Let me ask you about one statement from Plimer I find intriguing: 'Pacific island nations are seeing changes in relative sea level not because of global warming but quite commonly due to other factors, such as "vibration consolidating the coral island sands" …' Are you aware of that statement? He made it to Radio Australia (Wikipedia). It would be very interesting to see his proof (less for you and me than for Pacific Islanders.)

xxx, I appreciate that you with your background - being an academic - have a different outlook on scientific debate than myself … and I respect your qualifications; for the record: I have none, I'm just a blow-in (from the left, none-the-less!) The point with my blog is, it is not meant to be a scientific forum, it can't be, I just simply don't have the expertise to conduct such discussions. Thus it is rather more social commentary. I comment on what is going on around me. I comment on these issues as a 'lay person' would, and I work hard on informing myself with the information that is available to lay persons - and I think my readers (of which there aren't too many, trust me; certainly not many who get this far down the page: dear reader, if you post a comment and quote this code - Plimerism - I send you a free A4 print of any PHOTOART picture of your choice!) understand that. Selectively choosing what suits my agenda? Perhaps, but if that's true for me, then it is true for everybody else; anyway, it has to suffice.

What do you think about this:

Britain’s high commissioner to Australia, Baroness Valerie Amos, is reported to be surprised that Australians are still debating whether humans cause climate change and says that other nations have long since moved on. “There is a lot of debate about what has to be done” about the problem, but the fact that the problem exists is not discussed … in Britain they don’t have “the kind of negative reporting you have here.”

Nevertheless, it would be of great value if you could shed light on this, 'Pacific island nations are seeing changes in relative sea level not because of global warming …'

The climate change debate is political and the media are heavily biased towards the left.  These are indisputable facts. So, if you are surrounded by bias, do not seriously consider alternative arguments or demean counter arguments, then naturally, one forms an appropriate point of view. With few exceptions, the media has not allowed for intelligent debate on the issue.   We are feed propaganda, and I mean propaganda, all the time.

If you read Plimer's book you would see some very disturbing examples of bias in the climate change debate.  Plimer recounts exactly how the Robert Mann fraud of the hockey stick was perpetuated and how hard it was to force a correction.  It took years.  Institutions like the UN and the IPCC and, indeed, the prestigious journal Nature, all let us down very badly and have not apologised for their rush to judgement on this important issue.

The left are using Saul Alinsky's method in this debate.  Personally attack the opposition, undermine them, discredit them.  Holocaust deniers.  This is what I really object to.

Everyone selectively chooses facts to support their case.  You are no Robinson Crusoe.

Aren't you disturbed by the recent discovery of horrendous emails between Phil Jones and Robert Mann et al?  Do you ask yourself, "if these so-called world experts have to hide data contrary to their view or fudge data contrary to their views or plan to destroy the reputations of people opposing their views, then how strong are their arguments?".

Sea levels are rising, but not at the rate Al Gore predicts.  Recall Al Gore claimed George W Bush was a fear monger.  I have never seen fear mongering like what is going on now with climate change.  About the sinking islands - if the seas are rising at 2mm per year, then why are these islands suddenly sinking?

Be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Plimer states literally thousands of things.  Don't throw out everything because of a loose statement (if indeed it might be loose, I don't know).

Was 2009 the hottest year on record?  Did the global temperature rise between 2000 and end 2009?

We must all get back to the real question.  Is man-made carbon dioxide responsible for climate change?  The evidence for this is weak.  There are many factors which are more important.

But let's take a conservative point of view, let's not take a chance and take steps to prevent this possibility.  Let's do the most effective things.  Let's limit population and reduce meat production - problem solved.  Rudd talking about Australia with 35 million people while talking about an ETS is illogical and frankly stupid.

I like reading the opposing point of view.  I will follow up your link.

I won't agree in a million years that, The climate change debate is political and the media are heavily biased towards the left … for you to call that an indisputable fact is bias in itself. From your position on the far Right you naturally will consider any comment Left; anyway, if the debate is being politicised, I think - with all due respect - it's you who's doing it.

We are now repeating our positions over and over and there is no point in discussing Was 2009 the hottest year on record? Did the global temperature rise between 2000 and end 2009? those issues, for example, are addressed in the Monash University document.

It's over and out for me … but again, thank you for the debate.

Cheers, C.

If you don't think this debate is being politicised, climate change scientists have committed scientific fraud or the media is heavily biased, it is like we are on different planets seeing different things.

I think we have gone as far as we can go.

Thanks for the debate as well.

Ciao

SYDNEY PHOTOART

Carsten Burmeister