Opinion

Climate questioning akin to heresy

Senator Steve Fielding has stepped into the cyclone of debate over whether or not man-made carbon emissions are causing global climate change.

He says he has an open mind and simply needs an answer to one question to be convinced, but the act of questioning climate science is now being treated by the environmental movement as something akin to heresy.

On this website alone readers have branded him stupid, arrogant, a conspiracy theorist, a well-intentioned idiot and a hypocrite amongst other insults.

Before I am howled down and accused of being a sympathiser to the climate sceptics' cause or a left-leaning latte-sipping tree hugger, let's all take a deep breath and look at the issue afresh.

What has Senator Fielding done to offend?

Senator Fielding says he has an open mind and wants to assess as much information as possible before deciding whether or not to vote in favour or against the Federal Government's emissions trading legislation. Nothing wrong with that.

He says he has hit a sticking point and would like an answer to what would appear to be an anomaly in the science behind the argument that man-made carbon emissions are driving climate change.

He cites a graph based on figures from the International Panel on Climate Change (figures he says are accepted by Minister Penny Wong and the Government's Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett) which shows that although carbon emissions have increased by 5pc over the last 15 years, global temperatures have remained steady.

On the face of it, it seems to be a fair enough question - questioning is, after all, the foundation upon which science was built.

I am yet to see any action so far from Senator Fielding which is ignorant, stupid, idiotic, hypocritical, or conspiratorial. So why the vindictive name-calling from the pro-ETS camp?

If anything, this presents as a grand opportunity to convince a key senator of not just the science behind anthropogenic climate change theory, but also of the need for him to vote in favour of the ETS legislation.

What is confounding is that Senator Fielding says he has not received an adequate answer from either Wong or Sackett, or even Al Gore. As yet, none of the posters on this site have offered a decent explanation other than the fair point that the past 15 years is too small a sample size upon which to judge the issue.

The argument that the vast majority of scientists support the AGW theory is an impressive point, but that is neither an answer to the question nor a convincing argument. History is littered with examples of the scientific consensus getting it wrong - think flat earth, thalidomide, phrenology, Y2K, or even just look in your back paddock and think how the farming practices recommended by science have changed over time.

The reason those theories were amended or disproved was due to people using evidence to question the basis for the argument - exactly what Senator Fielding has done.

If the pro-ETS lobby cannot convince Senator Fielding over the basis upon which their argument is built, what hope does the world have of uniting in agreement at Copenhagen later this year?

It's time to play the ball and not the name.

Page:

single page

Posted By: MICHAEL THOMSON on 15/07/2009 12:12:00 PM | Comments (20)

FarmOnline

Source: http://www.farmonline.com.au

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

RELATED COVERAGE

13 Jul 09:

Fielding pleads with Senate to reconsider 'inconvenient fact'

13 Jul 09:

US climate bill put on hold

13 Jul 09:

Al Gore: carbon bill should pass

15 Jul 09:

Carbon emissions cheating Australia's next criminal underbelly

14 Jul 09:

Gore to back 'map' of emissions reduction

14 Jul 09:

Nice breakfast but Fielding unmoved

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Hallelulia! We are getting sense at last. The more you scratch the more you will find climate change is a crock!

Posted by Dr_rebel, 15/07/2009 12:37:34 PM

Exactly to the point Michael. Stop crucifying questions or questioners. That is scientific methodology. This is a hell of a big decision no matter what your personal viewpoint. The delay in warming means we have got time to answer more questions. If there are no convincing answers in the next 12 months then the AGW advocates have big problems. The thing that bugs me at present is the push to rush the answer before Copenhagen. Everyone is more interested in the Copenhagen outcome than a suitable balanced decision which will have positive impact on the livelihood of the "world" population.

Posted by Mick, 15/07/2009 1:42:53 PM

The issue is not whether Mr Fielding should question whether GHGs cause climate change, it is whether there is enough uncertaintly to hold off on taking action on climate change given how much evidence there is that GHGs do cause climate change. In this regard, the chart about recent air tempreature cooling since 1998 has been adequately addressed and explained by many scientists as not being any evidence that GHGs do not cause climate change. Mr Fielding's other claim comes from the publication by 1 astrophysist (Dr Soo) who claimed that solar flares could be source. The data Dr Soo used to establish his claim came from other scientists, not himself. These other scientists shortly after the article was written said that their observations had been misused and skewed by Dr Soo. Furthermore, half of the peer review panel resigned over the review process which they found was biased - it was conducted by a climate change sceptic in New Zealand. Dr Soo's research has been funded by Exxonmobile.

Posted by Blake, 15/07/2009 6:27:06 PM

These questions have been addressed in the IPCC's report. I would suggest that Senator Fielding (and others) actually read it before criticising it (standard protocol, really). In the report the fact that temperature rises are not linear is discussed… "Expressed as a global average, surface temperatures have increased by about 0.74°C over the past hundred years (between 1906 and 2005). However, the warming has been neither steady nor the same in different seasons or in different locations. There was not much overall change from 1850 to about 1915, aside from ups and downs associated with natural variability but which may have also partly arisen from poor sampling. An increase (0.35°C) occurred in the global average temperature from the 1910s to the 1940s, followed by a slight cooling (0.1°C), and then a rapid warming (0.55°C) up to the end of 2006. The warmest years of the series are 1998 and 2005 (which are statistically indistinguishable), and 11 of the 12 warmest years have occurred in the last 12 years (1995 to 2006)". Senator Fielding (fed information by people with cynical agendas) is NOT assisting the debate - he is taking it backwards. My own concern: the coming El Niño.

Posted by GT, 15/07/2009 10:09:24 PM

Better keep one eye on the window for the mob with torches and pitchforks Michael. Climate change itself doesn't worry me all that much. What does worry me is the attitude of true believers towards anyone who dares to question them. Perhaps it's possible that the temperature for the last 10 years has stayed level when it should have gone down with the solar minimum. And that it will shot up even more rapidly with the next cycle of solar maximum. I know nothing about the sun cycles or climate change. But I would have expected a rational explanation something along these lines from those who do, instead of the cries of heresy that we seem to be getting.

Posted by Qlander, 16/07/2009 3:07:52 PM

As editor of a responsible journal, Michael Thomson could be expected to be a little more analytical in his approach. Fielding's question has been answered, again and again, but he chooses not to accept the answer. It's very simply explained (and was explained to Fielding) - the graph of weather goes up in a series of zigzags, depending on many factors, but the trend of the graph as a whole is upwards. For reasons of his own, Fielding chooses to look a tiny segment of the graph which is going downward, ignoring the surrounding upward trend. Check the science!

Posted by nico, 16/07/2009 5:55:46 PM

OK… so climate change deniers are not prepared to read the science. And let's face it the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/) is a bit dry and technical, and would just be a distraction from Masterchef. Consider instead, that according to the Bureau of Meteorology it is almost certain that we are heading for another El Niño this spring. If another drought follows (with many farmers still suffering effects of the previous El Niño) things could get messy. I'm a farmer, so I'm praying for wet spring and mild summer. But if the weather turns hot and dry yet again, surely alarm bells should be ringing for everyone. Flat, dry Australia has the most to lose from warming, and most to gain from a green economy. In the scheme of things Senator Fielding is irrelevant. Hopefully, the majority of our politicians are actually reading the science.

Posted by GT, 16/07/2009 7:24:13 PM

Michael – you have dared to tread where no sane person has dared tread before. This is Al Gore’s territory where he holds the patented rights to the ‘Hockey Stick’ theory and the oceans are going to rise by 23 feet all through the press of the ‘enter’ key on a computer model. This is the territory where up is down and, down is up, where the goal posts consistently move to fit the theory. This is the territory where, by law, they are going to declare that Carbon Dioxide, the sixth element on the periodic table, to be a ‘Pollutant’. Who knows what the next element to be declared will be, I suppose we will have to wait for the next generation of computer models to give us the answer. This is the territory where complete and utter hacks can answer scientific questions where no other scientist or government in the world can answer. This is the territory where political correctness is the law. This is their territory. May I suggest, with the deepest respect that doing an in depth article into the science behind the ‘Chicken Little’ fable may be safer ground for you to tread.

Posted by Dr Bob, 17/07/2009 1:24:39 PM

Michael - If you have Senator Fielding's ear, I recommend you advise him to read the book Heaven + Earth , Global Warming: the Missing Science by Ian Plimer published by Connorcourt. It is an interesting science based examination of the all the science of climate change completely debunking current environmental thinking on all aspects of climate change. It shows the faults in the reports by the IPCC and the lies of the hockey stick theory and howls down Al Gore and it is written by a highly qualified professor of science. Why aren't these people getting any media coverage? It should be issued to all politicians before they open their mouths on the climate and it wouldn't do any harm if a few journalists read it as well!!

Posted by Chris, 18/07/2009 10:55:18 AM

IPCC Author states that the scientific link between "man-made carbon emmissions and global warming not there yet." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-gl obal-warming-conclusions-were-not-scientifically-there-yet/# more-9404

Posted by John Michelmore, 18/07/2009 4:38:39 PM

1 | 2 | next >

Michael Thomson is the Editor of FarmOnline. He has previously worked as the Canberra Parliamentary Press Gallery correspondent for the Rural Press group of agricultural newspapers, and as a senior reporter with Queensland Country Life.