Set the agenda

As part of The Sunday Age‘s Climate Agenda (see here for ACM’s question), I was asked to comment on one of the other questions, concerning the issue of “fruitful public debate” on climate change.

You can read the article here.

Fairfax parodies itself - gold!

The Sunday Age today publishes a lengthy article (and deserves a lengthy response) regarding my question on the OurSay website, which was, by way of reminder:

It is accepted that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing an amount of warming of the climate. However, the magnitude of any future warming is highly uncertain. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that its understanding of a number of key natural climate drivers and feedbacks is ”low” or ”very low”. Why is it, therefore, that the Fairfax press is reluctant to engage with and investigate this uncertainty with an open-minded impartiality, and instead continues to publish articles based on a rigid editorial agenda that ‘the science is settled’?

Michael Bachelard, the writer, discovered that the question was from this site – I had used a nom de plume to avoid the question being tainted in any way by being from a “sceptic” blog as I wanted the question to be judged on its merits not its provenance – but given that they had established it had come from this site, I have to admit to being a little disappointed at not being contacted by him to expand a little on the premise of my question before the article was written, which I would have liked the opportunity to do. Never mind.

The article is entitled:

“Majority Report: why consensus is all the rage”

And this is the first trap: consensus is a word of politics, not science. I will return to this later.

The article firstly describes briefly the history of the IPCC, but fails to mention that the purpose of the IPCC, as set out in its Principles (terms of reference) was to investigate, specifically, “human-induced” climate change. This, I submit, is a significant reason why the reports of the IPCC will inevitably have an intrinsic (even if inadvertent) bias towards findings that support the AGW theory.

The article then discusses some of the issues raised by my question:

But despite the endeavours of its 1250 scientific authors and 2500 peer reviewers over four reports – from 1990 to 2007 – the panel still has ”low” or ”very low” certainty about a number of the drivers of climate change. When it measures uncertainty, the panel looks at both the scientific evidence, and also the consensus among scientists about the evidence. If either of these measures is low, then the IPCC flags an uncertainty.

In its most recent report, in 2007, the impact on climate change of clouds, snow, aircraft vapour trails, the ash, soot and chemicals from volcanoes, water vapour, cosmic rays and the ”surface effects” of vegetation, buildings and other things occupying land space, were all considered uncertain. There were further doubts about the history of the changing climate and the growth and shrinkage of ice sheets in the past.

All agreed so far. However, the justification given by Sydney Morning Herald editor, Peter Fray, for running alarmist stories is less convincing. He claims:

”The IPCC … may still be investigating the natural drivers of climate change but that is not the same as saying climate change does not exist or the science is in doubt,” he said.

On the first part of this claim, I would suggest that is not very likely, and on the second, it is a misrepresentation of my position, and the position of sceptics. At no point did I say climate change does not exist – in fact I expressly acknowledged the effect of anthropogenic emissions on the climate. [This is a long post so click through to continue reading – thanks]

[Read more…]

The top three

The Sunday Age publishes the results of its “OurSay” survey, and addresses the top question in an article entitled “The question is, what earthly difference can we make?”:

Jason Fong’s question was the runaway winner of the OurSay climate agenda poll.

THE policy of both major parties is to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, even though both know that, in Jason Fong’s words, it will make ”negligible” difference to global temperatures.

So the question is, why bother? If the key goal of global climate policy is to at least cap temperature increases, what difference can Australian action make? There is a factual answer to the question, and there’s a context that is more complicated. (source)

I’ll leave it up to you to decide what you think of their response. I guess ACM’s question will be answered in a fortnight’s time.

Set the agenda

The Sunday Age’s Climate Agenda poll has finished, with ACM’s question finishing overall third (see here) with 1436 votes. Just a reminder, here is the question again:

It is accepted that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing an amount of warming [of] the climate. However, the magnitude of any future warming is highly uncertain. The IPCC acknowledges that its understanding of a number of key natural climate drivers and feedbacks is “low” or “very low”. Why is it, therefore, that the Fairfax press is reluctant to engage with and investigate this uncertainty with an open-minded impartiality, and instead continues to publish articles based on a rigid editorial agenda that “the science is settled”?

And ironically enough, the Sunday Age’s own home page for the Climate Agenda experiment proves the point perfectly, just by the collection of climate change stories they have assembled to illustrate the issues:

Climate change sceptics endangered: study

Climate change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows.

Is this the solution to the impact of climate change?

New coastal housing built near Portland will need to be ”relocatable” to meet the threat from climate change sea level rises, storm surges and erosion

Rudd pans climate-change sceptics

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd says anyone who still doubts the science of climate change should visit northern Europe.

Treasured Bordeaux wines under threat

Bordeaux’s fabled wine grapes are under threat from global warming, climate experts told a meeting of industry leaders

UK storm blamed on climate change

A British study concludes for the first time that an extreme storm there is likely to have doubled in intensity due to human induced climate change.

Mangroves shield against climate change

Mangroves, which have declined by up to half over the past 50 years, are an important bulkhead against climate change, a study released yesterday has shown for the first time.

Climate change is real. Let’s deal with it

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s announcement of a carbon tax has unleashed another round in the climate change fight.

I also notice they have contacted the first and second place commenters and have quoted them in this article, I wonder when my phone will ring…!

Set the agenda

That’s how The Australian described my question on The Sunday Age’s Climate Agenda. Yesterday’s Cut and Paste reported the top questions (mine is number two):

THE Sunday Age is launching The Climate Agenda — giving you the chance to decide what stories we cover. What are you confused about in the climate debate? The Sunday Age commits to reporting on the 10 most popular questions and publishing regular updates . . . So if you’ve ever been critical of the media’s coverage of climate change, here’s your chance.

Top question so far (961 votes):

THE very point of Australia’s carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5 per cent of Australia’s about 1.5 per cent contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by?

Question two (303 votes):

 THE magnitude of any future warming is highly uncertain. Why is it, therefore, that the Fairfax press is reluctant to engage with and investigate this uncertainty with an open-minded impartiality, and instead continues to publish articles based on a rigid editorial agenda that “the science is settled”? (source)

And today in Strewth:

Vox populi paper

THE Age website yesterday ran the story “Hypersonic plane: Fly Sydney to London in 49 minutes”, which we suspect wouldn’t be the preferred direction just now. Meanwhile, The Sunday Age was continuing its quest, as meticulously noted in Cut & Paste yesterday, to give readers “the chance to decide what [climate debate] stories we cover . . . The Sunday Age commits to reporting on the 10 most popular questions and publishing regular updates.” A cry for help or a courageous piece of crowd-sourcing? Either way, the most popular question last night — with nearly 2700 votes — began, “The very point of Australia’s carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5 per cent of Australia’s around 1.5 per cent contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by?” The second was nearly 2000 votes behind but was a bit rude to Fairfax, which struck us as akin to arriving at someone’s else’s party and spitting on the Jeffrey Smart print. (source)

Not exactly what the Sunday Age was after…!

See here for the poll and here for my question.