Clive Hamilton’s series of articles on the climate change debate at The Drum is not yet complete, but what’s missing so far is any self-reflection. Things have gone wrong for the alarmist camp, but the fault according to Clive seems to lie entirely with other people.
For instance I agree with Hamilton that behaviour in this debate has been poor – but poor on both sides, not just the sceptic side. I complained years ago about the ‘McCarthyist’ tactics of the alarmists, and their outrage at any dissent from the official line.
Not only has this approach helped provoke attacks in response and alienated people not strongly committed to either side, but it probably contributed to the broader political shortcomings of the alarmists. As I showed in a recent Policy article, in public opinion the alarmists have had the upper hand for 20 years. Their political imperative wasn’t to stamp out the last remnants of dissent on the science, but to convert belief in the science into support for practical measures to reduce carbon emissions. There was an opportunity cost to chasing down every sceptic offering a view.
The other tactical problem with the alarmists was their focus on scaring people rather than trying to sell a more positive message. In a month of climate change media monitoring in 2008, I found in Australian media alone an average of 1.6 different climate change disaster stories a day. This vastly understates the actual number of such stories, because multiple media outlets often report the same story. This kind of saturation negativity promotes both scepticism and boredom.
Perhaps Clive will reflect on his own side’s faults in coming days, but somehow I doubt it.
—-
In Hamilton’s attacks on ‘sceptic’ think-tanks he lets the CIS off relatively lightly. But as with his former PhD student Guy Pearse his evidence includes facts that are irrelevant to his case.
…after struggling in its early years, it was reprieved by a major funding boost from six mining companies, a rescue facilitated by Hugh Morgan. Among its board members is Sir Rod Eddington, a senior business adviser to the Labor Government.
What does help from Hugh Morgan 30 years ago have to do with current debates? And I’ve heard Rod Eddington argue for the science behind climate change, so how is his CIS board membership connected to supposed CIS scepticism? This is all just padding to make it look like Hamilton has more evidence than is actually the case.
Andrew Norton 
Wht do you think, Hamilton is in the least concerned with anything other then trouncing the other side, Andrew?
He seems more focused on how he looks to his own small tribe in terms of self-aggrandizement and promotion.
LikeLike
First, ‘the drum’ is full of ex-crikey lefties, and the invited guest writers are all lefties too! Good to see my tax payer dollars at work!
Second, Clive Hamilton is the last person to comment on behaviour. His open letter to Andrew Bolt’s children was a disgrace (long live the Bolt).
Anyway, to the case at hand. Totally agree with you Andrew about the skeptic witch hunts. From my angle, I am not a scientist. I don’t know whether any of this warming stuff is true or not. What I do know is that every day for the last 5 years scientists, greenies, lefties were ramming this stuff down my throat and treating skeptics like heroin addicts.
This alone makes me skeptical and resentful.
I have to say I’m bloody glad that they now have egg on their faces (East Anglia, IPCC issues). Serves em right.
But now, I am genuinely more confused then ever on the subject. I don’t know if this is all a hoax, or if there’s some truth in it. Comments from leading scientists saying “oh we have to exgaggerate to get people to act’ are not helpiing their cause either.
The ETS was always going to falter due to free riding – the Chinese would never sign up. Now that the lies have been exposed, it’s all over…NEXT!
LikeLike
You really are doing a great job with these types of posts Andrew – hits a bit light this week? Look at the Pavlovian responses of the first two who have responded to your critique of “alarmism”. Right-wing rebels who show their individualism by rejecting mainstream science. Brave kids. Existential heroes. Anyone for biblical accounts of human creation?
Climate change scientists take the issue seriously because their arguments have serious consequences. Robert Frank in the NYT gets it right and provides seriously (I guess to you) “alarmist” views of our climate future. But I think they are much more accurate statements than your hand-waving agnosticism.
Rather than consider these arguments Rebecca sees them as portraying her as a ‘heroin addict’. She isn’t a skeptic just a lightweight who can’t think – her views a surge of right-wing resentments and free associations – not an argument at all.
LikeLike
Oh Harry, try to be nice on Andrew’s blog and thanks for proving Andrew’s point.
I know you keep grudges from previous arguments, but it labors me in having to explain my views every time we meet on someone’s blog that I am not a sceptic. Not that it matters what you think i should think.
However I am not an alarmist either, as I don’t consider the tail risk is as dangerous you do while the bulk of the science is sitting around the 2 deg mark or there about.
There is nothing wrong with being offended by Hamilton’s rabidness even by people that aren’t sceptics.
As I said, try and act a little nicer and more pleasant, harry even when people disagree with you.
Furthermore you’re veering away from the topic of the thread which is really about Clive’s recent stuff on the ABC site and not about “da” science. Do keep up.
LikeLike
And Harry:
Anyone for biblical accounts of human creation?
Perhaps you’re living proof of creationism as I honestly can’t think that evolution would create someone like you in terms of the way you think at times 🙂
Just be nice.
LikeLike
Bit harsh there hc.
Simply saying that I am not a scientist and I don’t know whether the world is getting warmer or not. Unlike many blogg writers, I am saying hand on heart that I don’t know.
On the one side you have majority opinion saying the world is getting warmer etc, and on the other, you have well respected and influential people like Ian Pilmer and Andrew Bolt (viva la bolt) saying temperatures have fallen over the last 10 years despite Co2 emmisions.
Amongst that, the former is pointing fingers, yelling and screaming ‘heretics’ to the non-believers. Now at this stage I am not rejecting the ‘alarmists’ view, simply saying that they’ve been caught out (East Anglia etc), that they have egg on their faces (which I find amusing) and that I hope some rationaility will be restored to the discussion.
Lastly, they say when you can’t win an argument, attack the person, not the idea. So when I look at your post, with no evidence of warming and much name calling (lightweight), this is only leading me to believe that the alarmists views are simply that (hollow).
Night all – PS – I liked Rajat’s post before on the ’96’ tram. For those less travelled, it’s a bloody sheep carrier that tram. Ahhhh the memories!
LikeLike
Rebecca:
Don’t let harry worry you. He often is at his worst late at night for some reason and goes a little off the deep end. In the mornings after a few hairs of the dogs he reverts back to his normal charming self.
Don’t worry.
LikeLike
The frustrating thing for skeptics over the past several years has been the dogmatism of the climate cultists, coupled with an unwillingness to debate the underlying questions (and I don’t just mean the science, to which debate has returned post-Climategate; I mean the economics of adaptation vs mitigation, the real-world feasibility of an enforceable global deal to reduce emissions in the context of international politics and Chinese govt incentives, etc.)
I admit to taking involuntary pleasure in the frustration of the cultists now that the shoe is on the other foot and discussion has turned to issues they don’t want to talk about. It would have been nice to have a civilised discourse about all of the above. Instead, they wanted to sell shrill “Day After Tomorrow” stories and stigmatise every skeptic as a creationist lunatic (e.g. Harry’s comment above) or a shill for big oil. As they labour to free themselves from the stigma of Climategate, arguing that it is unfair to tar them all with the same brush, one cannot help but appreciate the irony.
LikeLike
In citing comments from leading scientists saying “oh we have to exgaggerate to get people to act”, Rebecca fails to realise that those comments appear to have been fabricated by a British journalist. Indeed, four climate change scientists have now come out to indicate that they have been verballed by the same journalist (from the London Telegraph, if I recall correctly). But such behaviour is par for the course for denialists.
LikeLike
I think part of the problem is that even if most people think climate change is real and problem we should work to solve (as a majority, including myself, do), because it is a ‘common good problem’ there is no clear route to a strong international agreement on climate change.
Because it’s not clear what productive work those worried about climate change can engage in, the temptation is to continue hammering the few remaining skeptics. Alas, they are not the real impediment to solving the problem now – rather it is that each nation would individually prefer to keep polluting while the others put in the hard yards.
LikeLike
“However I am not an alarmist either, as I don’t consider the tail risk is as dangerous you do while the bulk of the science is sitting around the 2 deg mark or there abouts”
.
JC, you are making no sense. First you say you don’t think the tail is dangerous (who on Earth is saying it isn’t incidentally?), and then you point to the mean (in fact a number slightly lower). This is a bit like me saying I don’t think the risk of skin cancer is dangerous because I only have 22 moles, and most of them don’t look very big and most won’t turn into cancer.
.
Also, I wonder why people feel obliged to go after Clive Hamilton? Can’t people find any real or slightly more serious targets to go after?
LikeLike
Harry – My post originally had a link to this similarly-toned comment of yours as evidence for my argument, but I deleted it as I decided it was not fair to single you out. But ironically (as others have pointed out) you jumped in with the evidence anyway. I’m a classic case of someone who thinks the alarmists have a point but is put off by their bullying and arrogant style.
Robert W has the most important point in this comments thread, which is asking what other productive work the alarmists could have done instead of what they did do. (I should note that one problem here is that we are talking here more about a movement than an organisation, so hard for them to collectively decide to do anything). The most obvious to me positive thing would have been to focus more on technologies that would make a difference. This is indirectly what carbon charges are supposed to provide incentives to do, but people like technology and there would be little resistance to extra R&D billions focused on alternative energies. There are elements of this in the US where reducing reliance on Arab oil is an added argument.
LikeLike
“Also, I wonder why people feel obliged to go after Clive Hamilton? Can’t people find any real or slightly more serious targets to go after”
Probably because:
1) He’s everywhere (in Australia, he’d be one of the top few alarmists for name recognition);
2) There is strong suspicion that his prior political rejection of affluent Western lifestyles is his motive;
3) He attacks individuals and organisations so they respond;
4) There is a touch of sanctimony to his style.
LikeLike
Conrad:
I was trying to make sense. The tail is a very long odds bet like most tails are. Harry’s excitable link implies the tail ought to be given higher recognition. In other words the tail is fatter. However it doesn’t appear to be the case in terms of where “da” science is. “Da” science is around 2% according to Richard Tol who spent the time to review everything there’s around.
Funnily enough the best explanation and what to do about is actually found at the IPA website in a lecture given by Richard Tol who incidentally debunked Stern’s appalling economics.
It’s here: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1751/how-much-emission-reduction-would-be-justified-
Why do people go after Hamilton?
Are you kidding me? This isn’t a serious question.
LikeLike
Poor Harry, his haemorrhoids are playing up again.
LikeLike
JC,
Even at 2%, it is worth thinking about. The chance of my house burning down is less than that, but I still have insurance for it.
Perhaps I just give Hamilton less credit than other people do.
LikeLike
Climate political alarmism was important a few decades ago to raise the alarm. Now what is needed is climate policy progressivism, to show the majority the way forward.
The main climate policy is “cap and trade”. I dont know about you but the thought of leaving the management of the earths climate to a combination of UN bureaucrats and Wall Street bankers leaves me cold [sorry!].
Most people cannot understand or feel confident about this scheme. That is why climate skepticism is growing: the main policy solution looks like a dead-end so whats the point of going down that road?
LikeLike
Conrad:
2% is not 9% which is the projection in Harold’s link I believe. Bit different.
People that generally talk about Hamilton is to put down his ideas. Anyone that says democracy needs to be suspended to allow a dictatorship to rule us should never be allowed an even break.
LikeLike
“On the one side you have majority opinion saying the world is getting warmer etc, and on the other, you have well respected and influential people like Ian Pilmer and Andrew Bolt (viva la bolt) saying temperatures have fallen over the last 10 years despite Co2 emmisions.” – Rebecca_23
Rebecca, don’t you think you have a duty to yourself to actually try to find out if temperatures actually have fallen over the last 10 years? And if in fact they clearly have not (as I am very confident a few minutes googling will tell you, because the “10 year” timeframe now excludes 1998 – the hottest year for many millennia) then will you continue to think people such as Bolt who lie to you about it as “well respected”?
One side is, admittedly sometimes badly, trying to tell people the facts here. Another is only concerned to spread FUD – and FUD is always easy to spread.
LikeLike
Rebecca, don’t you think you have a duty to yourself to actually try to find out if temperatures actually have fallen over the last 10 years? And if in fact they clearly have not (as I am very confident a few minutes googling will tell you, because the “10 year” timeframe now excludes 1998 – the hottest year for many millennia) then will you continue to think people such as Bolt who lie to you about it as “well respected”?
Phil John reckons they’ve flat-lined Derida.
Here take a lookse:
So to remind ourselves, what did Jones say?
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Let’s do that again.
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes …
LikeLike
I think a key reason why the scientists are exaggerating claims is because they’re on the public teet and that their incomes and well being are directly tied to the issue.
I mean, we hear about all the bogus claims of Ian Pilmer et al being in the arms of the oil companies, but what about all these academics and scientists bleeding my mates – average Joe taxpayers – by perpetuating these climate change myths.
Indeed, the other day I read how all these research grants had been awarded to ‘climate change studies’. And of course the academics realise this, so they’re all tacking ‘and climate change’ onto the titles of their proposed studies.
E.g. History of monetary policy and climate change, A study of post-modern urban ecology in Australian suburbia and climate change…..what a joke!
LikeLike
Andrew – I don’t think most mainstream commentators have been hysterically alarmist – given the extremely serious threat climate change poses.
.
I think what so upsets the right about the issue is the undeniable failure of our free-market system to handle the problem, and the fact that we have no choice but to do something it. Classical liberals don’t like being told that the government has to step in to do anything, thus the shoot-the-messenger reaction.
.
I agree with Jack that public support is waning because of poor leadership on this issue. I agree (uncomfortably) with Tony Abbott (I think that’s where’ll you find a “bullying and arrogant style”) that direct action is our best first step. When I’m trying to persuade friends of mine, who say things like “Why should we go first?”, I try to find other benefits – for example if we produced methanol and used it in our cars the way Brazil does, this would help with energy security and create jobs for indigenous communities.
LikeLike
“I think a key reason why the scientists are exaggerating claims is because they’re on the public teet and that their incomes and well being are directly tied to the issue.”
Actually, I think you find many, like the MIT group, work at private universities.
.
In any case, I doubt it makes much difference to a lot of them — once you’re good, it’s easy enough to work in other countries that don’t have the type of anti-intellectual morons Australia does that not only complain about what gets done, but then complain when people sell their ideas overseas when they do find something good when no-one cares in Australia. Reminds me of that SunTech guy who people complain about because he did his PhD here and then became a billionaire in China.
LikeLike
“I don’t think most mainstream commentators have been hysterically alarmist – given the extremely serious threat climate change poses.”
.
I don’t either, because I don’t consider Clive Hamilton a mainstream commentator.
LikeLike
Picking up on Robert’s point, the closest analogy (as Garnaut keeps saying) is free trade. As multilateral trade negotiations have broken down, countries have moved to bilateral and regional deals. But free trade is unilaterally beneficial, carbon reduction action is not. So there isn’t much point in entering regional or bilateral deals on carbon reduction unless you have the ability to get the large emitters to join them. Europe has been talking about carbon tariffs, but Australia is in no position to arm-twist anyone. Investing in R&D on new technologies is one approach – and Lomborg has been a strong supporter of this – but the same issues arise for Australia: why invest when we can free-ride on others? One thing Australia could usefully do while waiting for others to commit is have a proper debate on the technological issues surrounding nuclear power. So that if and when a global deal is ever reached, we know the full extent of the technologies we are willing to use.
LikeLike
“have a proper debate on the technological issues surrounding nuclear power”
.
Why only the technological issues when a lot of the objection is over issues such as if we have the right to leave everlasting toxic waste as a nasty legacy to future generations?
LikeLike
I don’t think the right is upset by the ‘climate change issue’, it’s just that there is no underlying issue. Only lefties, who have long since left religion needing something to believe in. So they embark on this ‘climate change crusade’, castigating skeptics and burning heretical deniers at the stake!
The interesting thing is, even if you believe all this climate change tosh, what then? Little ole Australia can’t do much. We’re much better off free riding off the efforts of others. The Chinese and Russians have worked this out, so why can’t we??? This is not a break down in classical economic theory, as Rusty would have us believe, but rather, a robust confirmation of it!
But I spose,our troubles could be solved, if we closed our coal plants and factories so that we can produce some ethanol… Pah-lease!
LikeLike
Baz – is Tony Abbott a leftie? He seems to have moved from the tosh/crap position …
.
I didn’t say we should close our factories (do we have any?) but go ahead with measures that reduce carbon emissions while also having other benefits. Pity Rex Connor didn’t get to build his pipeline – we could have been using gas in our power stations now. Premier Barnett says W.A. is the Saudi Arabia of gas.
LikeLike
“The interesting thing is, even if you believe all this climate change tosh, what then?”
.
And if you’re an anti-science fool, then you simply use ad hominem to discredit things. Enjoy smoking, it’s healthy after all. All that tosh about lung cancer is just tosh. I know, Andrew Bolt (or insert other shock-jock here) told me so.
.
“Little ole Australia can’t do much. We’re much better off free riding off the efforts of others. The Chinese and Russians have worked this out, so why can’t we???”
.
Because we’re rich and can get a early mover advantage. In addition, I might point out the 20th century was a good example of the problem of countries not co-operating, which is why things like the EU were formed, and they were successfully able to tackle things like SO2 emissions (and stop fighting each other). If there was no cooperation between countries, I don’t see why some countries wouldn’t just dump their rubbish and used nuclear submarines in convenient places away from their own countries (many countries could “give” Australia’s uranium back also), use all the water in rivers that cross countries, belch out as much smog as they want (China’s smog now reaches the US), etc. .
LikeLike
What new technologies, Rajat? Honestly? I not trying in any way to sound terse towards you but what new ones? The subsidy whores like wind and solar?
That junk will never ever work, as it’s impossible to extract heavy amounts of energy from totally dilute forms of energy input. They will simply never, ever work in providing cheap and abundant energy to fuel an industrial civilization. Period. That’s not even up for debate.
So let’s go to the ETS, which is really the elephant in the kitchen cupboard here. Penny Wong has privately conceded (but publicly hasn’t) that the objective of reaching 20% renewable /carbon emissions target by 2020 is impossible.
It’s impossible because renewable energy transience creates the problem that you can only have a maximum of 7% renewable target on a north south grid backed up with coal fired plants. Coal fired plants require to higher lead times in terms of responsiveness to sudden drops in renewable supply vs demand.
So the ETS is a no goer from the start. It’s fatally flawed based on wretched premises.
How about the other elephant in the bathroom, which is nuclear energy, that is 100% emissions free and doesn’t pollute microenvironments with crappy junk littering it? How the hell can we have an ETS without nuclear is beyond the realms of being retarded?
Tanner has publicly stated towards the final stages of the introduction of the ETS into parliament that lower income earners will in fact take more out than they put in, which immediately turns part of this policy into a social redistribution model and not an emissions reduction plan.
Lastly, how do we introduce such a plan when the big players aren’t and having a lateral effect of pushing our energy intensive industries overseas and thereby having zero effect on global emissions?
These are questions I have put to myself and I can’t find any reason to support this abomination of a policy. In fat it’s worst than an abomination as it belongs in the 1oth circle of Dente’s hell.
If we really want to do something about emissions we should simply roll the targets up to zero emission by 2050 (60% under the ETS) and wait patiently for 15 to 20 years while the price of nuclear plants fall in price as a result of economic scaling and be done with it.
The subsidy whores like solar and wind will never, ever, ever become economically efficient and we’re kidding ourselves into stupidity by pretending otherwise. They’re money sinkholes.
LikeLike
“The subsidy whores like solar and wind will never, ever, ever become economically efficient and we’re kidding ourselves into stupidity by pretending otherwise.”
And your evidence for this statement is?
LikeLike
I thought nuclear was a subsidy whore too ??
LikeLike
Also, isn’t Spain doing quite well with renewable energy?
LikeLike
Spain is barely solvent!
LikeLike
Yes,
As I explained earlier.
1. Energy diilute
2. transience
3. economic inefficiency.
4. Engineering impossibility to even make them efficient.
I’ll repeat. They will never ever ever be efficient enough to fuel our living standards. Ever! Even if this crap was free they still wouldn’t.
And when the public cottons on it will place de-carbonization even further behind he 8 ball as people will feel they have been pied to again and tons of scare resources wasted.
LikeLike
Russell
I highly recommend you read this.. pay particular attention to the comments section too by Peter Lang, as he along with Barry Brook are the best commenters in the country over this issue.
I’m more pessimistic than Peter on renwwables as he doesn’t care or not if they work as long as they’re not subsidized.
LikeLike
oops lots of gram mistakes sorry. I should proof.
LikeLike
Anyway, Abott doesn’t believe in climate change. He also thinks its tosh, just like John Howard did. If he says otherwise, it’s only because its an appeasment to potential greeny voters. If in power, Abott wouldn’t do anything (non-core promise). Maybe he will make a few well publised carbon sequeastration subsidies.
Conrad, there’s as much of a first mover advantage in an ETS as there is in Russian Roulette. Furthermore, unlike the reasons behind the formation of the EU, the Nash equilibrium for the ETS issue, is to free ride (see game theory). Hence, no co-operation (see the hopen-hagin and copen-hatin mess).
LikeLike
PS – least Andrew Bolt is entertaining. What does the left have….ohhh I’m sorry, Phillip “chunker’ Adams! …..my mistake!
LikeLike
Andrew,
Just wanted to voice my strong agreement with your post.
On any number of occasions I have voiced my anti-warming opinion. These opinions are well founded and tpyically based on hard evidence. For example, the weather in Melbourne today maxed out at 25 degrees. This is well down on the about 35 degrees temperatures of late last month. Moreover, there have been crazy snow storms this year in the Northern hempishere.
In any case, when I voice these opinions, I often get called nasty names, such as nutter, half-wit and sometimes I am even told to do things like ‘do us a favour and cark it’.
This is clear, hard evidence that those that believe in climate change are harrassing people and alienating them. But while doing so, they fail to realise that they can never change my thoughts, nor my vote. And that comforts me.
LikeLike
“hence, no co-operation (see the hopen-hagin and copen-hatin mess).”
.
Well, when Indonesia lets in lots of boat people, gets their fisherman to fish out our waters, and dumps toxic waste near our shores, I guess we shouldn’t complain. No co-operation, after all.
LikeLike
Sam,
I don’t wish to be personal, circa conrad last night, but I think you might be a french fry short of a happy meal!
That said, I agree with your sentiments and must confess to a guilty chuckle nonetheless.
LikeLike
Andrew, Clive is clearly out of his tree. And he has been for years. I don’t think we should be giving him oxygen, or holding his battiness up for public ridicule.
LikeLike
Andrew, Your emotive description of those who recognise the possibility of catastrophic climate change as ‘alarmists’ is very misleading. They recognise a substantial probability of a catastrophic risk to the continued survival of the human race on this planet from unmitigated climate change. The evidence I cited for this didn’t come from some ratbag blog site but from some distinguished climate scientists at MIT.
If I am a little terse with fools like JC who criticise the notion of fat tails of a probability distribution by alluding to the mean of of these distributions then I apologise. But I don’t think I am – JC is just ignorant of climate science and of statistics. How should you deal with fools?
There are real dangers from climate change which can be averted at relatively low cost. What is bizarre really are the ongoing attempts by seemingly smart people such as yourself to promote a derisory attitude to the science and to those – who having recognised what is possible – seek to get governments to act to mitigate the worst possible outcomes.
This isn’t politics – its using the best knowledge we have to manage the life of the planet prudently and effectively.
LikeLike
Just check back on all those arguments that went “scientists say that this fishery will collapse unless you cut fishing by x per cent”, and all the hard-headed realists said that was impossible, economically ruinous, what would ivory-tower types know anyway – and the fishery collapsed. Try Grand Banks, bluefin tuna, North Sea herring. Check also water allocations, forest management and much else.
Now get a good basic book out of the library on the laws of thermodynamics (basic to most industrial processes – no controversy there unless you also believe the earth is flat). It would be a surprise if the earth were NOT warming – and indeed it is. The universe does not make exceptions for human convenience.
Check the meaning of “statistically significant”. and try to understand that teasing a 0.2 degree per decade signal out of a lot of noise means that 10 years is a short time.
The latest science says we have probably missed the chance to limit warming to 2 degrees average across the planet – probably nearer 3 IF we get our act together quickly. For 3 degrees, it’s closer to think “20 per cent warmer” than just another degree or two. That is, your 45 degree summer heatwave will be a 50 degree summer heatwave.
If my doctor was as worried about my health as the scientists are about warming, I would be revising my will. And it’s not their job to explain the facts of life to the poorly-educated, ignorant or the unwilling. They get paid (very modestly) to understand the universe. It’s up to us to pay attention and do something.
LikeLike
“This isn’t politics – its using the best knowledge we have to manage the life of the planet prudently and effectively.”
Harry – This sentence sums up the problem I was writing about in the post. Like many people through history in the grip of (to them) a self-evident truth, the alarmist camp has set out to terrify and bully people into submission. Our current systems of democratic government have been designed to limit such people, and require them to get consent (or at least acquiesence) for their views. Any major change, however desirable or sensible, is therefore ‘political’. While the collective action problems here are so massive I think the default option – dealing with the consequences of climate change – was always the most likely, I think poor tactics by the alarmists have probably blown the opportunities provided by early public acceptance of the basic scientific theory.
LikeLike
Harry:
Please stop frightening yourself to death and calling people names because they don’t agree with your extreme views.
If I am a little terse with fools like JC who criticise the notion of fat tails of a probability distribution by alluding to the mean of of these distributions then I apologise. But I don’t think I am – JC is just ignorant of climate science and of statistics. How should you deal with fools?
I was actually very good at numbers. In fact they were my best subjects and got me through tertiary very lazily. I find it hilarious that you would emotively call me a fool when I’m simply relying on the mean distribution to reach the more likely conclusion.
There are real dangers from climate change which can be averted at relatively low cost.
Okay, then spell them out. Just don’t leave us hanging, spell out exactly how your plan would be low cost Mr. Armchair Strategist. Let me warn you though that it had better include something more than wind or solar as you would be marked down with a giant “F” for fail.
The evidence I cited for this didn’t come from some ratbag blog site but from some distinguished climate scientists at MIT.
Harry, you’re truly bizarre. MIT scientist such as Lindzen considers the predictions of some of “da” science to be overblown. Would you selectively include him as a “distinguished” MIT scientist or not?
What is bizarre really are the ongoing attempts by seemingly smart people such as yourself to promote a derisory attitude to the science and to those – who having recognised what is possible – seek to get governments to act to mitigate the worst possible outcomes.
As far as I can tell, there’s no government in the entire world that is trying to mitigate for the worst possible outcome. Most rely on where the large body of predictions lay on a probability chart and not the “fat tails”.
This isn’t politics – its using the best knowledge we have to manage the life of the planet prudently and effectively.
You’re remarkably ignorant if you really think the tool kit to deal with it is not about politics. I’ve already explained a better plan to get to the Promised Land, which doesn’t involve tossing money at the subsidy whores. If you have a better way, other than the pathetically conceived ETS the government is presenting then lets hear it, otherwise stop abusing people if they don’t agree with you.
Don’t be scared Harry.
LikeLike
Conrad:
And if you’re an anti-science fool, then you simply use ad hominem to discredit things. Enjoy smoking, it’s healthy after all. All that tosh about lung cancer is just tosh. I know, Andrew Bolt (or insert other shock-jock here) told me so.
Good example, Conrad. It’s actually a great example of “da” science leading to some really detestable outcomes. The effect has been to lead governments into taxing the hell out of these products, which incidentally is being used these days more as a revenue-gathering tool than to prevent smoking. Higher taxes have led poorer people into smoking stronger (effect) and inferior products that are likely to make their health worse.
Great effort.
LikeLike
JC,
.
If AGW was either correct or not correct, you wouldn’t call it “tosh”. It’s a serious line of scientific investigation, and the fact that some people simply dismiss it like that shows what an anti-intellectual group many Australians happen to be part of, and no doubt is one reason why Australia will never be good at science (it’s also very ironic since it seems rather likely that, as you’ve pointed out a thousand times, we’ll all be involved with it one way or another, even if we don’t want to, given the likely actual outcome is that it is assumed to be reasonably valid).
.
Also if you think the government smoking campaign hasn’t worked, you’re wrong. If there’s a few fans of cancer left, and they now smoke more dangerously as a result, well, it was still a good trade-off.
LikeLike
Conrad:
Where did I call it’s “tosh”? Please retract that silly assertion and apologize.
I believe the government’s smoking campaign to high tax in cigs has not worked and caused further hardship.
It’s a serious line of scientific investigation, and the fact that some people simply dismiss it like that shows what an anti-intellectual group many Australians happen to be part of, and no doubt is one reason why Australia will never be good at science
Australia is actually very good at science, Conrad. I just don’t think one needs to support the appalling abomination of the ETS to be good at science. Do you?
(it’s also very ironic since it seems rather likely that, as you’ve pointed out a thousand times, we’ll all be involved with it one way or another, even if we don’t want to, given the likely actual outcome is that it is assumed to be reasonably valid).
I really don’t follow you on this point.
LikeLike