Climate sense
Marc Hendrickx, who runs the ABC News Watch blog, writes in The Australian:
ON ABC’s opinion site The Drum, “public intellectual” Clive Hamilton has claimed the public broadcaster has been infested by a nest of climate deniers. According to Hamilton, Aunty has handed its editorial control to the far Right. It’s a pity he forgot to provide any evidence to support his claims, as even the most superficial assessment reveals nothing to substantiate the right-wing conspiracy alluded to, just everyday sensationalism, along with naive and inept journalism.
Aunty’s main problem is not opinion sites such as The Drum that has given Hamilton a megaphone, and also posted a range of views from climate experts and non-experts alike, including me. The problem is the ABC’s news and science reporting that continues to let down its audience.
It does this in several ways. First, the natural inclination of the media to favour alarm over calm results in stories with headlines such as “Oceans on brink of mass extinction: study” getting prominence over less sensationalist stories such as “Is climate change new (and bad)?”
The media’s bias towards sensationalism results in the ABC and other media outlets picking science stories that can be beaten up. In this context the restraint of sceptical scientists simply does not attract as much attention.
Second, certain ABC reporters seem to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome when it comes to interviewing scientists promoting climate alarm. They are failing to properly scrutinise experts and authoritative documents such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments and government reports. Without bothering to properly verify the facts, they act as echo chambers, spreading misconceptions.
Third, the perception of bias in ABC climate reporting is not so much due to a conspiracy of amateurish environmental activists, though it seems many now walk the corridors of ABC’s head office, but stems from ineptitude. Aunty’s bias is most obvious in those stories that have gone unreported. In the same week the ABC failed to cover an important paper by Australian researchers that found no influence of climate change in last year’s Victorian bushfires (a disaster our non-climate expert, Hamilton, was quick to trumpet as a sign of impending climate doom), it also missed another study that smashed the notorious hockey stick graph to pieces.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Just like climate change, this is not a new problem – Napoleon said: ‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence’
I stumbled upon this site while looking for a joint statement issued by the national academies of science of all the G8 nations and those of India and China that supports the science of climate change.
I studied climate science as part of my Masters degree. I find it incomprehensible that supposedly sensible people question the science behind climate change. There are real people doing the hard yards in inhospitable environments who are gathering more and more evidence that clearly demonstrates that not only is the climate changing, faster than ever before, but that the cause is anthropogenic. In fact there is so much data and so much analysis that there can only be 4 reasons that anybody can ever deny AGW. They are delusion, stupidity, ignorance or dishonesty.
Do you really expect me, or anybody else, to accept the sceptics position is right and the academies of science of all the G8 countries are wrong? Despite your tag line the debate is actually over. You lot have to decide which of the four categories above that you fall into, or whether you are willing to go out and learn something with an open and honest mind.
@Rod: I’m not really interested in how many scientific bodies claim that the science is settled – science isn’t about consensus. I also don’t care much for your four ad hominem reasons for questioning the science (because that is what they are). Yes, I do expect people to question the “consensus” position when it is so clearly driven by politically motivated organisations like the IPCC and UN, and there is plenty of peer-reviewed science that does not agree with the consensus. Furthermore, no sensible person denies that anthropogenic CO2 warms the planet – but if you claim to know the climate sensitivity arising from feedbacks in the oceanic and atmospheric systems and therefore whether such warming will be negligible, catastrophic, or anything in between, you are as [insert one of your four ad homs here] as the sceptics. We are the ones with the open, free-thinking and questioning minds, not blinded by the dogma of the climate change religion.
Fair enough.
But if you do take the time to study the science, the idea that climate change is not anthropogenic is crazy. Yes it is complex, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong. It is the best explanation for the changes we are witnessing. If you know better, publish a peer reviewed paper. You will need to be highly specific. Come up with a sensible explanation for say the reasons behind the increase in the velocity in the polar vortices. Or any other topic you care to choose. Develop as hypothesis, go out there, gather the data, do the analysis etc – you know the drill.
And with science I agree it is not consensus that matters. Indeed I would seriously doubt if any of these academies care about consensus.
What is more time and momentum are on your side. You only have to stall action to “win”. It is easy with the complexity to sow the seeds of doubt. As I said, there are serious people out there in inhospitable places doing the hard yards while the sceptics sit at home blogging away in their climate conditioned comfort.
You say there is plenty of peer reviewed science questioning the consensus. Show me. Of course it does need to be credible.
@Rod: I have said that I am not a climate scientist, and of course I am not qualified to write a peer reviewed paper on the subject. That does not mean that I am not entitled to ask for evidence of AGW, not just projections of incomplete models. Furthermore, I become deeply suspicious when political pressure is applied to a supposedly impartial scientific body. Check my Recommended Reading link and read John McLean’s history of the IPCC and tell me honestly that we can fully trust their reports to be impartial.
Also some other commenters have pointed to lists of peer reviewed papers.
I would say many in the ABC have fixed views on this subject not because they have a political agenda but because of “the noble cause syndrome”. It sounds and feels good to be looking after the planet, if you hold any other point of view then you are a traitor to humanity and your children’s future. Convincing people like this to look closely at the science will be hard.
Rod Campbell-Ross
“You say there is plenty of peer reviewed science questioning the consensus. Show me. Of course it does need to be credible”
OK, you could try here for a start, which provides abstracts and links to over 800 papers, all peer reviewed (and thus anointed with the ultimate mark of credibility), which cast doubt on the consensus you hold so dear.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
It surprises me you haven’t come across much of this material in your “climate science” studies. On second thoughts, no it doesn’t:)
Rod, one thing I’ve noticed is that many of the sceptics are geologists working in the field. The scientists driving this scare are computer modellers sitting at a desk.
As much as I like field workers it will be the data from remote sensed oceanographic and space platforms that will ultimately tell us what is happening.
I am not saying we must impartially accept anything. I am saying there is a considerable body of evidence supported by rigorous analysis that supports the hypothesis. Mrs Thatcher (remember her) correctly described it as a risk management problem. We have theoretically got a choice in our response, but in practice we will do nothing, if for no other reason than sites like this exist.
No combination of all of the alternatives can replace the energy contribution from FF so we cannot stop using them. By the time we notice that sea levels are rising from the melting Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and thermal expansion of the oceans it will be too late anyway. It is probably too late now.
I will have a look at your link later tonight.
@Rod: With respect, it is utterly ludicrous to blame “sites like this” for doing nothing. Just remember that $75 billion since 1990 has been spent on the AGW movement by governments and Big Green, a microscopic fraction of that has been spent on sceptical research (“follow the money”), and a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction on sceptical sites such as this one – I don’t get paid by anyone, or work for anyone, especially Big Oil – it’s self-funded plus the occasional donation into the tip box. The mainstream media is fully behind the AGW cause, rarely if ever publishing anything that dares question the consensus, as are 99% of world governments, so whining that it’s the filthy sceptics that are stopping action will not engender much sympathy from me. The Hockey Stick was blown wide open by a couple of bloggers working in their spare time…
By describing the issue as one of risk management, you are advocating the precautionary principle, in other words, we don’t know what’s going to happen, but we should act anyway “just in case.” Well, acting anyway “just in case” is not without massive costs itself – money must be spent that could be better directed towards alleviating poverty, healthcare, education, clean water – thousands of far more deserving causes. Extraordinary action requires extraordinary justification, and is right that proper scrutiny is applied. Even if it’s only by tin-pot bloggers like me.
Rod, you may have stumbled upon this site inadvertently, but the statements and sentiments you have stated above are almost a parody or cliche of what we expect to hear from the committed AGW believer: multiple argument(s) from authority, ad hominem attacks, willful misunderstanding of the skeptic position, etc.
As I said, your comments above border on being a parody of the AGW attacks we’ve been seeing for the last decade or even longer.
OK folks, I will slink away and not bother you any more. There was never any chance of me convincing any of you here anyway. What will be will be. As I said above, you are safe in your scepticism, nothing will ever be done to control AGW, especially here in Australia.
Simon, great points, as always. As has been outlined previously all sceptics need to do is raise the questions which have as yet (surprise surprise) not been answered.
In fact, I have 75 billion reasons to believe that if they could be answered they already would have been. I have to wonder just how much cash is takes to actually provide some sound evidence? It’s mind boggling.
Garry, you’re SO right. Rod is dribbling the same old tired and feeble arguments. So boring and unoriginal. Peer review, consensus, scientific democracy etc etc. I personally am no longer interested in wasting my time trying to argue with people like Rod. They have their religious belief system based on their study and interpretation of the sacred scripture of the IPCC and the religious influence of leftist academia. No amount of reason will ever change that interpretation.
However, I must say I find this statement of Rods amusing –
“It is the best explanation for the changes we are witnessing.”
Great statement Rod, but what the hell is it supposed to mean? It’s like saying, hmmm, well the earth looks flat, so as far as I can tell it must be, because that’s what it looks like. It’s the best explanation for the flat that we are witnessing.
For heavens sake, how long must we endure these tired old arguments.
Rod all I can say is you WAY too trusting my friend. All is not what it seems.
The data and much of the science you put your faith in is corrupted.
I also notice with interest the steam has blown right out of your boiler by point 9 Rod. What happened? Can’t argue with the facts?
“I also notice with interest the steam has blown right out of your boiler by point 9 Rod. What happened? Can’t argue with the facts?”
Latest update. At point 12 Rod’s boiler has now gone – stone cold.