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 
JC, the comment was directed at Baz, which is why I think you are misunderstand things.
.
Also — Australia has some of the lowest smoking rates in the world. How could it not have worked?
.
As for how/good bad Austraila is at science — i think we’re living on borrowed time and reflected previous glory actually. I don’t think the ETS and science are related.
LikeLike
It doesn’t appear the comment was directed at baz at all.
jc,
.
If AGW was either correct or not correct, you wouldn’t call it “tosh”.
Doesn’t appear to be directed to Baz.
Also — Australia has some of the lowest smoking rates in the world. How could it not have worked?
Educational programs through the medical system. Government advertising and the fact that the older smokers have died away.
Not tax, which simply directs people towards smoking the least healthy products around.
In any event this isn’t about smoking, so leave it there.
LikeLike
JC, search for the word “tosh” (comment 27).
LikeLike
Conrad
I have no doubt, Baz used it. I didn’t and yet you suggested I did.
As I said a nice heartfelt apology would be in order especially after Harry’s abusive rants unjustly directed toward me. I’m feeling victimized now.
LikeLike
Of course I said the word ‘tosh’. It is tosh!
Sorry if revealing the emperor’s clothes, or lack thereof, made an anti-intellectual, but when I spot rubbish, I say it. e.g. the IPCC claims that the Himelayan glaciers were melting was complete tosh.
Yet I am a big fan of the enlightenment period, a couple of degrees in the hard sciences (ok dismal sciences), yet somehow I’m an anti-intellectual.
I think this really goes back to Andrew’s point, can’t win an argument, just burn em at the stake!
In terms of Australia and science. I agree the future is bleak, but I don’t think we have to much to cheer about our scientific past anyway. As before, compare our unis to the US, compare our venture industry to the US, it’s pathetic. We’re better of sticking to what we do well. Digging stuff out of the grain, making food, finance and manufacturing degrees :). And that’s ok – not the end of the world anyhow.
LikeLike
I think you should apologise also conrad.
LikeLike
It’s un-Australian not to!
LikeLike
“I think poor tactics by the alarmists have probably blown the opportunities provided by early public acceptance of the basic scientific theory.”
.
So the deniers and people like Abbott, and the crew at The Australian et al. had nothing to do with public opinion? Environmentalists, left or right, did present a confusing and contradictory range of ‘solutions’, but more damage was done by the deniers, and their publicists. The subject and its consequences are necessarily alarming – it was the alarm raised by Gore and others that led to the “early public acceptance of the basic scientific theory.”
LikeLike
Russell:
Most of what Algore said wasn’t all about “da” science. It was self-serving, highly emotive gibberish that only the failed divinity student is able to muster. If anything he poisoned the discussion even further.
LikeLike
You must be a literal genius Baz, to have a normal job and be able to evaluate all the literature so well that you can call it tosh (especially considering some of the smartest people in the world work on the issue). I learnt a new word from John Quiggin’s blog yesterday for people like that.
.
JC: You’ll have to ask Harry for that (although his post was directed at Rebecca and Andrew if you read it ). All I asked was for you to clear up a a few other things. As I said, my complaints are largely directed at Baz.
LikeLike
DENIER’S FLAT EARTH APPROACH TO SCIENCE
hc (Harry) said (to Andrew)
Although I rarely disagree with Andrew, nor find myself on the same side of an argument as Russell (or Clive Hamilton), I agree with them and with Harry on this occasion. What is interesting in Andrew’s post(s) is the lack of any attempt to address the fundamental point in Hamilton’s article – that the various supposed “errors” found in the IPCC report do virtually nothing to alter the validity of that body’s findings. They are rather like a spelling mistake in Copernicus’s thesis being used to argue that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. Alas, that has not stopped denialists from claiming that these errors invalidate, or cast serious doubt, on the IPCC reports key findings on climate change.
LikeLike
JC, … whatever. Andrew claims that alarmists blew “the opportunities provided by early public acceptance of the basic scientific theory.”
.
I think that’s the wrong way around. The early public acceptance of the basic scientific theory was due to the alarming message of Gore and others. The opportunities were blown as much by deniers muddying the waters, as anything else.
.
It’s just shoot-the-messenger hysteria because neoliberals can’t accept the need for government interference. Even when the interference takes the neoliberal inspired idea of creating ersatz markets.
LikeLike
Conrad – You are my hero – a real live case study who keeps evidencing Andrew’s orignal post. That is, yourr arguments are lazy, you just persist with this ‘anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot approach’ Mate, it doesn’t work me and it doesn’t wash with my – average Joe Public.
Anyway, so-called climatetologiests are the smartest people in the world? Kidding me. Most of them are cardigan wearing, self important intellectual snobs who couldn’t hack it in the real world. You know the line, ‘those who can’t, teach’. Well that’s them! There’s no global warming, just selective data.
PS – Andrew Bolt also has a name for those people!
LikeLike
Baz,
.
I wasn’t using that argument at all. If you want to be smart and convince people that the really smart people arn’t, rather than calling them names, nasty stuff etc. (which you’ve managed to do yet again), why not publish a few articles in Nature telling everyone why? You’ll be more famous than Monckton, but for the right reasons. If you don’t do that, no doubt the people you are trying to deride will have the last laugh on you.
LikeLike
Nature magazine? What is that? It must have subscriptions in the order of, what, 3? Much rather write for GQ, Ralph, zoo weekly etc. A few laughs from those readers and I’ll be pretty chuffed!
LikeLike
“climatetologiests … are cardigan wearing, self important intellectual snobs who couldn’t hack it in the real world”
.
Baz, I think you’ve just exposed yourself there. It seems that you think that the world of business is the real world? We’re just finishing our hottest, driest summer on record here in WA – last night the minimum was 28c – the real world was making itself felt.
LikeLike
Russel – Melbourne weather forecast
——–
Forecast for Saturday – source BOM
Cloudy. Scattered showers. Winds northwesterly averaging 15 to 25 km/h tending south to southwesterly around lunch time.
City Showers.
Min 21 Max 25
Yep, that global warmin business, she is a sure blowin in!
LikeLike
Baz – you need to put down the daiquiri, roll of the Lilo and get out of the pool. Find out about the rest of the world. It’s not all about Melbourne you know.
LikeLike
And then what Rusty? Check out WA cause its all happenen there?
LikeLike
From deserts the prophets come, Baz
LikeLike
Actually, it’s bloody hot outside in Melbourne right now.
LikeLike
Just kidding Rusty, WA is a great place!
LikeLike
What do u mean its hot. It’s 21 degrees where I’m sitting
LikeLike
Still in the pool, on the Lilo, with the daiquiri?
LikeLike
“What is interesting in Andrew’s post(s) is the lack of any attempt to address the fundamental point in Hamilton’s article – that the various supposed “errors” found in the IPCC report do virtually nothing to alter the validity of that body’s findings.”
Indeed, my post was about what was *not* in Clive’s articles. Most of them, including the two I linked to, were not on the IPCC report (the one that was mainly on the IPCC report appeared the day after I originally published this post). Hamilton was offering an analysis of the politics of climate change without reflecting at all on whether his own side may have mishandled the issue.
To me, this is just typical of the alarmist approach: we can’t possibly be wrong, everyone who is against is a fool, a nutter, anti-science, a stooge of vested interests etc. These things may be true, but it is a recipe for political failure in a democratic culture to make saying this the strategy.
LikeLike
Still in the pool, on the Lilo, with the daiquiri?
Russell, I hope the computer is running by battery and you haven’t got the ac adapter running while on the lilo.
LikeLike
Enough on the weather and pool activities.
LikeLike
I love a good lilo 🙂 so much fun!
LikeLike
Andrew,
I think you might have a point about the conduct of some on the pro-science side of the debate. I think calling them alarmist (even if you use scare quotes) is a bit of a sleight of hand and probably beneath you, but I’m happy to look past that.
But I think your stance would be more credible if you went after the dishonesty of the anti-science side a little more. You’ve had a go at Clive Hamilton (he deserves it), but if you are impartial, why not have a go at Andrew Bolt as well? His coverage has been just as agenda-driven, and just as dishonest. Maybe you are scared of the viciousness of his response?
The economist have shown the way:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/
I think if more people “on the fence” like you went after the Bolts, Blairs et al as well as the Hamiltons, it might soften the view of a lot in the “alarmist” camp.
LikeLike
Robert – I do try to be fair in the context, but I am not purporting to be ‘impartial’ or in a blog post provide any comprehensive coverage of a subject. The context here was a series of pieces by Clive Hamilton, with whom I have a long adversarial history (ie, why pick on him?).
I have avoided discussion of the science, as I have no scientific credentials and no credibility on the subject. (Like most people I have a heuristic-driven opinion, in my case that the majority scientific opinion is more likely to be right.) There is no reason why anyone should pay attention to my views on future weather. My climate change analysis has been of the politics of the subject, where I do have some expertise.
The ‘alarmist’ tag annoys some people, but it is short and in its literal meaning (without pejorative connotations) a good description of people offering a constant stream of catastrophe predictions.
As for the idea that I could swing sceptic opinion, I seriously doubt it. As far as I can tell, this blog only has a few hundred regular readers and not that many from the ‘tribal’ right that is driving the sceptic case.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response Andrew. I appreciate your honesty. I should emulate it myself. I also can only pretend to having a heuristic-driven opinion and find your characterisation of it as such refreshing.
As for the alarmist tag–fair enough. I disagree with you but accept the use of it as shorthand from a certain perspective.
I’d just like to push back on one point you make: you say that your blog has only a few hundred regular readers and none from the ‘tribal’ right, and that you would be unable to influence them in any case. This is untrue. Andrew Bolt has linked to your blog approvingly on a number of occasions, (from memory). Ideas do matter, and they spread further than one’s immediate readership. They ‘trickle down’. You are a measured, intelligent writer with a small but loyal following. You do have the ability to influence the way some on the right– maybe even the tribal right–think about these things.
LikeLike
Robert, Andrew Bolt is not dishonest. He is an absolute legend.
When being a skeptic was worthy of being burned at the stake, Bolty, the ex-labour staffer, was there defending the truth. He always projected that copenhagen would come to nothing, it was he who showed the flaws and frauds in the claims of the alarmists, it was he who carried the torch of truth when we were surrounded by a dark sea of conformist climate change sheep!
And it doesn’t matter if the issue is climate change, islam, the stolen generation, no one on the left is able to land a glove on him and he is cutting through with the broader public. Consequently, his reputation and reach has grown accordingly.
Thus, the question is not whether the A-Nort should critise Bolty, but why he doesn’t get off the fence, come out of the closet and more fully echo Bolty’s sentiments.
LikeLike
Robert – I said ‘not that many’ rather than ‘none’ on my ‘tribal right’ readership. Andrew Bolt does link sometimes, and I get temporary visit spikes when he does, but my general view is that my style will put off the ‘tribal’ audience. Apart from recent arrivals Baz and Rebecca, only a few of my long-term regular commenters seem to basically offer the ‘tribal’ view in their contributions (and not all the right tribal view either). That’s the way I want to keep it; while obviously my own normative views are right-of-centre I mostly find the tribal stuff a bore, trying to squeeze every issue into a team competition rather than having any curiosity or desire to sort out puzzles.
LikeLike
GO THE A-NORT! … BACK TO THE DICTIONARY
Andrew#75 said: “Indeed, my post was about what was *not* in Clive’s articles….”
I accept you can make a defense of this nature, and more generally a claim not to have (or to need to) make a call on the science, though you might want to reflect on whether your choice of language – “alarmists” – and what The Australian would call your use of moral equivalence – “poor [behaviour] on both sides [of the debate]” – do give succour to denialists.(^)
.
In relation to the alarmist tag, in response to Robert you said
“…in its literal meaning (without pejorative connotations), a [it is a] good description of people offering a constant stream of catastrophe predictions.” However, its dictionary meaning includes a pejorative aspect(#) – that’s what the “ist” suffix is intended to do! Accordingly, people who offer a constant stream of catastrophic predictions are only “alarmists” if their predictions are without a reasonable basis. You have by your own words indicated that you have not shown this. Unless you can, I believe you should dispense with using the term.
.
On a slightly different note, I hope the newcomers to this blog take heed of the fact that you find the tribal stuff a bore. As a long term visitor/contributor here, I would prefer that the comments thread was not crowded up with that sort of pap too. That said, I admit that the “A-Nort” does have a certain ring about it.
.
______
.
# Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe. (emphasis added)
.
^ Before I be criticised for hypocracy regarding labels, let me clairfy that I use the term “denialist” in the sense carefully argued by Quiggin, for that subset of anti-AGW action campaigners who inter alia repeat long-discredited talking points with the aim of besmirching and befuddling, rather than honestly seeking the truth on this matter. I do not lump all anti-AGW action types under this label; I recognise that there may also be some genuine sceptics regarding the science, and rather more regarding whether an ETS or other preventative actions are warranted.
LikeLike
Tom – OK, my dictionaries agree that ‘alarmist’ has a connotation of generating needless fears, though needless or not the people-without-any-short-or-catchy-name-who-are-very-worried-about-climate-change have used alarm as a primary tactic. This is the biggest scare campaign in history, the only one I think that has been maintained for years across many cultures.
And frankly it is the ‘succour to denialists’ kind of approach that I find pretty irritating and why I am fairly hostile to the people-without-any-short-or-catchy-name-who-are-very-worried-about-climate-change as a political group while still thinking they are probably closer to the truth on the science than the sceptics.
This kind of ‘you’re with us or against us’ approach is both counter-productive politically- I for one rarely respond positively to this kind of pressure – and ultimately very damaging for the people-without-any-short-or-catchy-name-who-are-very-worried-about-climate-change themselves, as it closes down processes of reflection and criticism. This was one point I was making when I noted the lack of self-reflection in Hamilton’s articles (there was none in his series, as I predicted).
I think there is a serious case that the people-without-any-short-or-catchy-name-who-are-very-worried-about-climate-change have made major tactical blunders, but no sign at all that they are doing anything other than intensifying the strategies that did not work last time.
LikeLike
A-Nort, how about just calling members of the two broad groups ‘Believers’ and ‘Doubters’? People may not be alarmists, sceptics or denialists, but they are likely either to believe the IPCC’s argument about climate change or to doubt it.
That should allow you to discuss matters without the alarmists’ knickers becoming too knotted 😉
I find it endlessly fascinating that a discussion of climate change can send people limbic!
LikeLike
Jeremy – ‘Believers’ is certainly easier than people-without-any-short-or-catchy-name-who-are-very-worried-about-climate-change!
LikeLike
Andrew, sometimes a pejorative label is well deserved, and serves a useful purpose in public debate. People who continue to pedal arguments that have been shown to be false, after enough instances, cease to deserve the benefit of the doubt.
As I mentioned (in a footnote in my previous post – not sure from your response whether you read it), I use the term “denialists” selectively and carefully: I do not label all people who supposedly ‘doubt’ the case for action on AGW as denyers. Equally, I am sure there are some – though I suspect a much smaller proportion – of advocates of action to counter AGW who are indeed alarmists. The problem is that you seem to have been applying that label to all – including, in effect, thousands of reputable scientists – who support action to counter AGW.
The fact that you apparantly cannot find an existing, and suitably pithy, term to capture this broader group does not, I suggest, justify use of term for them that clearly has a false and derisory connotation.
LikeLike
I’m sorry Tom – that’s just bullshit. The term ‘denialist’ has a very well known meaning as a perjoritive and is associated with holocaust denial. It is offensive, it is meant and designed to be offensive and I cannot imagine why anyone hearing that term should think that it is intended to be offensive.
LikeLike
A big A-men to that Sinclair. This Thommo character seems to asking for permission to dismissively label people who happen to share differing opinions. But, credit where its due, he did at least he put forward his ideas in an anti-tribal more intellectional kind of way.
LikeLike
“… this is just typical of the alarmist approach: we can’t possibly be wrong, everyone who is against is a fool, a nutter, anti-science, a stooge of vested interests etc. These things may be true [my emphasis], but it is a recipe for political failure in a democratic culture to make saying this the strategy.” – Andrew
So presumably we should refrain from speaking ugly truths, Andrew? Personally, I reckon if “everyone who is against is a fool, a nutter, anti-science, a stooge of vested interests etc.” then I have not merely a right but a duty to say that.
Surely you would have far more cause for complaint if there was in fact a united, co-ordinated “strategy” to manage public opinion, rather than just individuals calling it as they saw it. Do you really want to feed the conspiracy theorists?
LikeLike
Derrida:
How do you feel about people applying unscientific methods to casually dismiss nuclear science?
LikeLike
I don’t like the Caldicotts of this world either, JC. But it is not primarily “unscientific methods to casually dismiss nuclear science” that is stopping nuclear power but simple economics.
Whereas alarmism gets all its political effectiveness from the conspiracy theorists and those whose “logic” runs:
– if AGW is real then government intervention is needed
– government intervention is Teh Evil
– therefore AGW is not real.
LikeLike
Sinclair said (#80):
Actually Sinc, I never denied that ‘denialist’ is a pejorative; in fact, if you re-read my post, you’ll see that I was quite explicit about there being a case for the use of pejoratives in some instances.
That said, I neither mentioned – nor thought about referencing – the holocaust when using the term ‘denialist’. Now that you raise it though, there are of course some parallels in the mental gymnastics engaged in by holocaust denyers and AGW denyers. Nevetheless, there are different types of denialists, just as there are different types of alarmists. The question, it would seem to me, is whether such a term is an appropriate descriptor.
In the case of AGW, I judge that many AGW ‘doubters’ do indeed deserve time term (and, as mentioned, I agree with Quiggin’s careful argument on this). You are entitled to be offended by the application of this term to you, just as I am entitled to offend you – its a free(ish) country. Of course, you are also at liberty to ignore me. Nonetheless, I’m calling it as I see – and analyse – it.
LikeLike
Derrida:
You may not like Helen Calidcots, the Peter Garretts, the Green Party or the ALP over this issue, but there are lots that do. Judging from some of your previous commentary I would tend to see you in the left leaning camp, which seems to me that you also really don’t have an issue with this policy either, despite your protestation.
They each share similar passion of rejecting nuclear power and in the case of the Greens rejecting nuclear medicine outright.
In other words they reject a scientifically proven method of producing emissions free energy because it’s “yukky” and instead promote the various subsidy whores such as wind and solar which have as much hope of producing enough energy for an industrialized civilization equal to rubbing two sticks together to make fire.
…….
But it is not primarily “unscientific methods to casually dismiss nuclear science” that is stopping nuclear power but simple economics.
Seriously? So the French, Swedes, UK, US, China and Japan to name just a few countries are using nuclear energy for uneconomic reasons?
Incidentally solar would be the most un-economic method of energy production.
Whereas alarmism gets all its political effectiveness from the conspiracy theorists and those whose “logic” runs:
– if AGW is real then government intervention is needed
– government intervention is Teh Evil
– therefore AGW is not real.
Yes, generally speaking nearly all government interventions (economic) in the West since the war has been like Midas in reverse. There’s not much anyone could hang his or her hat on. The pink bats and the abomination of the ETS being two decent examples.
I think you left out various groups. One group thinks AGW is real, but it is hardly the moral descriptor of out age.
LikeLike
JC, you’re a dope. I’m not going to waste more time and derail the thread any further by responding to your post above, but I invite other readers to peruse it carefully and count the errors of logic in it. We all need a laugh.
LikeLike
Derrida:
I’ve been called worse. Try and calm yourself down as I would be interested in a response. If it’s peppered with abuse it’s fine too.
LikeLike
Whooska – don’t mess with the JC!
LikeLike
Andrew – It’s good to see that you’re still dining out on the passing mention I made of you on page 244 of High & Dry. Your greenhouse policy commentary has been entirely relevant to the case I made in the book. It only reinforces how right it was to include you. Guy Pearse – Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
LikeLike
Guy – And how right I was to take a swipe at you, for concocting conspiracy theories!
LikeLike